This correspondence is in reverse chronological order


From: "Michael" <>
To: "ICIS-Institute for Cooperation in Space" <>; <>; "Exopolitics Deardorff )" <>
Subject: Well what do we have here?
Date: Tuesday, 7 February 2006 9:16 AM

Hiya Doc,

Well, while I can understand your headlong rush to close the doors of
the discussion that you foolishly flung open, when you were almost
safely on your way to comfortably enjoying some anonymity, it seems
like the veil of mystery has been lifted as the true motivations
($$$$$$$$ ca-ching!) behind your recent attacks on me and the Meier
case are now very obvious.

It appears that you have built your particular house of cards on some
rather wild, completely unscientific and unsubstantiated premises, to
put it mildly. As someone who took me to task for what he called
"embellishing/embellishment", it seems only fitting that you be
required to explain the silly, speculative, New Age mumbo-jumbo jargon
and claims in your following commercially-oriented information. I was
tempted to highlight key loonyisms of yours but there are simply so
many, running together, one on top of the other, that it would be
redundant and foolish - just like your claims. I will, however, insert
a few notes just to make it obvious how absolutely unprofessional and
charlatan-like the following is...especially coming from an esteemed,
ahem, Dr. of something or other:

Exopolitics 102 - Citizen Diplomacy with Extraterrestrial Civilizations

This course examines examines the key principles of 'galactic
diplomacy' at the unofficial level, as a form of 'track two' diplomacy
aimed at establishing contact and communications with different
extraterrestrial races. The course analyses the nature of diplomatic
representation on Earth that might be recognized by various
extraterrestrial races. Particular focus will be on the representative
status of different global constituencies such as politically organized
humanity, cetaceans, alleged subterranean civilizations, and the role
of Earth or 'Gaia' as a living organism. The course examines the need
for 'track two galactic diplomacy' as a means of complementing official
diplomatic relations between major nations and extraterrestrial races.
Finally, the course examines how national security agencies will
respond to 'track two galactic diplomacy' between private
citizens/groups with extraterrestrials in terms of four key challenges
confronting the practice of this form of diplomacy: 1. the extent of
private communications and interactions with extraterrestrial races; 2.
the coercive resources of shadow government agencies; 3. the degree to
which extraterrestrial races may manipulate citizens engaging in track
two galactic diplomacy; and 4. implications of initiatives and
agreements reached through track two galactic diplomacy.

MH: Proof? Help us out here, doc, are you simply looking for a lot of
brain dead people with too much time and money or their hands, or are
you just trying to make sure that nothing you ever say on the ET/UFO
matter is ever taken seriously? ("Both" is also a possible answer.)

Become a Galactic Peace Ambassador

There are dozens of different extraterrestrial races with a variety of
motivations that are interacting with global humanity.
MH: Proof?

These extraterrestrial motivations span the spectrum from 'benevolent'
activities aimed at uplifting humanity towards a fuller expression of
its galactic potential, to manipulative activities designed to
undermine human sovereignty.
MH: Proof?

A detailed explanation of the most significant extraterrestrial races
interacting with humanity and the role played by national security
agenices worldwide is available online (click here).
MH: Proof? You mean the dreaded Alex Collier-based info? Hysterical!

The extensive nature of human-extraterrestrial interactions indicates
that all humans communicating or interacting with extraterrestrials are
by default 'representatives' of global humanity irrespective of the
nature of the interactions. This suggests an urgent need for some form
of diplomatic training for such individuals.
MH: Proof?

A number of extraterrestrial races are assisting in the evolution of
human consciousness, and communicating with private citizens and groups
that are interested in more peaceful and harmonious policies at a
global level.
MH: Proof?

Nevertheless, the various extraterrestrial races interacting with Earth
are locked into a low intensity conflict over the direction and
potential of global humanity in the wider galactic community.
MH: Proof?

These extraterrestrial races work through their respective 'human
allies' in the form of global elites, national security agencies,
concerned private citizens, and/or non-government organizations to
promote their respective 'visions'.
MH: Proof?

Competition involving extraterrestrial races and their 'human allies'
on Earth mirrors conflicts at the galactic level between major
extraterrestrial races.
MH: Proof?

This makes the extraterrestrial rivalry over the Earth's population and
resources something that has interest to the wider galactic community.
MH: Proof?

'Second track' or 'citizen based diplomacy' offers the opportunity for
private individuals or groups to open communication channels between
conflicting parties. It has been shown to be effective in developing
suitable confliction resolution strategies for difficult or intractable
MH: Really? Well, how come you're not doing that work in some
legitimate context instead of trying to find every easy mark in the New
Age-UFO community to con out of their dough?

Individuals trained to be Galactic Peace Ambassadors would fill an
important need for communicating with extraterrestrial races, mediating
between different extraterrestrial races and global humanity, and
establishing second track diplomatic relations with extraterrestrial
MH: Proof?

Enroll in a Galactic Peace Ambassador Seminar

Cost: $2599

To be included in this 12 Day Seminar Package:
• 12 nights accomodations at Sky Ranch (2-3 guests per room);
• 5 boat swims to meet with the dolphins and establish
multi-dimensional communications;
• 5 lunches aboard boat;
• 12 buffet breakfasts and 12 gourmet dinners;
• Transportation to/from all Seminar events
• Snorkling lesson from shore
• And the most recent information regarding current extraterrestrial
activities on planet Earth

MH: Say, pardon me, doc, but it looks to me like you've mislabeled this
course. While I had a thoroughly delightful time on my little swim with
the fishies facilitated by Joan, Lisa and friends, this last line here
about info re current ET activities sure seems a little vague, wouldn't
ya say, I mean what's it doin' in there with all the other stuff? And
since when are you presenting info on the Meier case, which is the only
one that I know of with "information regarding current extraterrestrial
activities" here? I mean NOWHERE have you established anything other
than your huge desire to $ell some mumbo-jumbo - with not one shred of
proof for your entire premise, credentials to make such claims, etc.

Oh yeah, and by the way, upon rereading your absolutely brilliant bit
of double talk at, I can fully
appreciate why you must be staying fairly close to the bathroom these
days, as you've created a really huge credibility problem for yourself.
In a document where you liberally acknowledge Meier's genuine status as
a true, ongoing contactee, you also insert an abundance of nonsense
from "Collier", whom Meier himself has referred to as a fraud! Wow,
nice goin' doc!

And since you point to only one item (regarding black holes) that you'd
like us to believe validates all of Collier's claims, for one thing,
sound waves as we know them don't propagate through space. For another,
if this had happened, and if astronomers could view the particular
color that was supposedly emitted, they wouldn't be able to view it for
countless years, since the known black holes are over thousands of
light-years away. So why should Morenae tell Collier about it? "Color"
only propagates with the speed of light. And why, given all the other
innumerable civilizations in the galaxy/universe, should this unique
event happen in our lifetimes when it could have happened any time in
the past million years, say? For this reason, I'm sure that astronomers
and Hawking wouldn't buy the statement for a second, and also because
of the implication that there is a single "time" throughout the whole
universe -- that March 23, 1994 occurs at the same "time" everywhere in
the universe.

Doc, it sure seems to me that you've bitten off more than you can chew
here, what with your absolute refusal to address, let alone defend,
Collier's abundance of hallucinatory, delusional and downright, already
proven wrong statements, and your clearly financially motivated,
snake-oil pitches for courses and trainings on basically non-existent,
unproven premises and abilities...and for which, naturally, there
neither are, nor do you have, any appropriate credentials.

Would I be correct that, next, you're going to make this a multi-level
marketing program and have a whole line of Galactic Peace Ambassador

Now that just might be a more fruitful career for an intergalactic
$ale$man such as yourself.



From: "Michael" <>
To: "ICIS-Institute for Cooperation in Space" <>; "Exopolitics Deardorff )" <>; <>
Subject: Re: Michael Horn and Embellishing the TRuth
Date: Sunday, 5 February 2006 12:32 PM

Well, he's back and again demonstrating that he doesn't know when he's
had enough. So, I will insert my responses below to Salla's latest
attempt to remove all doubts, in anyone's mind, about his professional
competency as a "scientific researcher" on the subject of "genuine UFO
contactees" and related matters.

> Wow, Michael I was mistakenly getting the impression that you could
> engage in a dialogue without resorting to name calling, insults, etc.
> Well, I was mistaken but I guess when one is backed into a corner,
> then the nasty side emerges.

MH: Michael, since you are apparently unaware, consciously, of the
tactics of passive-aggressive people such as yourself, who bait others
behind a mask of professionalism, superiority, sincerity, etc. allow me
to point it out to you. You should reread your own messages, the
innuendoes, snide assertions, and plain wrong information, etc. You're
one of those cowardly types that, when he gets punched in the mouth for
going too far, looks around, in mock bewilderment and says, "Hey, did
you see what this crazy guy just did to me?" as if you're suddenly the
poor "victim" in the matter. Boy, do I know your type!

> Perhaps you can look in the mirror next time you hurl insults such as
> 'pompous', 'fool', "ego-inflated self-image", etc., at those doing
> research to assess the validity of different contactee cases. I think
> you are free to disagree with the results of my research so far on
> Alex Collier.

MH: What "research" into what "evidence" are you talking about here? Do
you mean his voluminous fantasies, the ones that you won't address, is
that what you mean by "research"?

> Your efforts to dismiss his testimony based on little more than your
> own biased assessment of some of his online material is amazing in its
> audacity. Just because you think his predictions are nonsense, that
> doesn't make him a liar, a fraud, etc.

MH: Really? My "biased assessment"? Since you've shown yourself to be
quite cowardly for refusing to provide even an unbiased assessment of
that drivel, perchance you can refer me to a credible soul who will
stand behind it. Surely, in all of your extensive "research", you've
found someone who's willing to make a fool out of themselves and vouch
for that junk.

> There is more to contactee research than just cherry picking through
> one's writings to criticise those aspects that are most objectionable
> from your point of view. As for your repeated references to his
> writing being 'delusional', well again, just more debunking from your
> part.

MH: Does anybody else here notice that no matter how many times this
knucklehead is called to defend the Collier junk he simply tries to
divert the focus to anything else? Please, I mean please, share with
all of us just how sane, rational and non-delusional Collier's writings
really are!!! C'mon, this is your big chance! You just effectively said
that they're not, so...make your case for them, finally, at last, now!
> In terms of my own research effort, it should be pointed out that I
> have had Alex Collier fly out to Hawaii in Sept 2005 so I could
> interview him personally and have others give their opinions on him.
> That took money and effort and shows an essential component of the
> field research method necessary for contactee research. That means
> reading body language, determining sincerity, integrity, seeing at
> first hand any evidence that is available, etc.

MH: Did I miss something here? Are you trying to tell me that your
"research" centers around "...reading body language, determining
sincerity, integrity..."? Again, the words mumbo-jumbology ring loudly.
You're a - did you say that you're a...researcher, a scientific
researcher? Did it not come to your attention that pathological liars,
sociopaths and people with multiple personality disorders can appear
to be sincere, sane and congruent, i.e. integral/integrated/rational,
while being absolutely deceptive and delusional? What is your expertise
in all of this "reading and determining", are you a professional jury
consultant, master NLP practitioner, etc.? What evidence do you you
have for the accuracy of your perceptions?

And speaking of evidence, just what is this supposed to mean, "seeing
at first hand any evidence that is available, etc."? What evidence did
you see, where is it, who has examined it, what are their credentials,
etc.? And, by the way, why do you cite "have others give their
opinions on him" as if that meant anything either?

Hey, are you really Michael Salla or just someone trying to give him,
and the organization he's affiliated with, a very, very bad name?

> Aside from the testimony of Jon Robinson who is supportive of Alex's
> case as you know,

MH: Why not mention that Robinson is also supportive of my having hung
out with Ralphie, something that the now Collier had somehow
forgotten...and probably wishes that Robinson had too, since we're now
just a hair's breadth away from the inevitable admission that he indeed
possessed and gave me the CNs, after studying them sufficiently to be,
shall we say, "inspired" by them?

> there is also Val Valerian (aka John Grace) author of the Matrix
> books, who also thought Alex is legit and in fact published Alex's
> contact notes. Similarly, JZ Knight had Alex travel up to address her
> classes on two occasions and she thinks he is legitimate. So as you
> can see, I and Paola Harris are not the only researchers who think
> Alex Collier is legitimate after interviewing him and analysing his
> material.

MH: Have I accidentally fallen in New Age hell here? Are you now trying
to further shred whatever thin thread of credibility only your best
friend's could be expected to offer you by introducing another couple
of "new identity" types, whose "credentials" in scientific UFO research
are dubious at best? You now add to your team a woman who thinks that
she's leasing inner space to a 30,000 year-old (very dead by any
description) guy and someone about whom this is easily found at, and at least
begs credibility questions:

"While the original witness remains anonymous, Val Valerian, who wrote
the report, is a pseudonym for John Grace (7)(last known rank of
Captain in 1992) of the Counter Intelligence Division of Air
Intelligence of the United States Air Force.

Captain John Grace and John O. Lear (lifetime CIA pilot and operative)
wrote the books, "The Matrix", "Matrix 2", "Matrix 3", and any
subsequent volumes(8). They were undoubtedly paid a huge sum for the
movie rights.

Grace and Lear have admitted to creating the forged “KRYLL” documents,
purportedly describing an alien being held by the US government(9).
This establishes that Captain John Grace of the Counter Intelligence
Division of Air Intelligence of the United States Air Force has
participated in this type of hoax before. It appears that, despite no
evidence of either aliens or harmful substances being present within
contrails, Captain John Grace and others appear to be steering the
contrails controversy towards a confluence with their “alien/UFO”
hypothesis. This joining together of two false “threats” could be a
means of fomenting panic and disarray among the people.

The information in Captain Grace’s report was found to be inaccurate,
incorrect, and has been altered to a great extent since my inquiry
four days after it’s issue. These facts alone do not make it false,
but it’s credibility considering it's author's history of Air Force
Counter Intelligence hoax activity is now highly questionable. Without
corroborating evidence or documentation, it cannot be considered valid
at this time."

Yes, indeed, you sure are some heavyweight in the research area. With
those two folks supporting "Collier" I can hardly wait for you to
ascend the podium at the UN and make the Collier case the centerpiece
of your "evidence" for ETs! You know, I may be just the therapy you do
indeed need, someone who comes along and helps guide you to a new,
productive and less self-damaging career than acting as the now
reluctant spokesman for a retired IRS agent who is firmly convinced
that someone Bogarted the moon in 2003.

> As for your evasive response, let's recapitulate, yes you were honest
> in admiting to embellishing about your research on the Meier case. In
> your own defense you say: "I was unable to FIND anything more than the
> two books on the case, which nonetheless have substantial information
> and food for thought." Well let me repeat your word's concerning
> meeting Alex Collier in 1986, "We got to talking about things
> paranormal and UFOs and then the topic of Billy Meier came up. I
> mentioned that I had the (first) photo book and then Alex(Ralph at the
> time) asked me if I'd read the Contact Reports (mainly referred to at
> the time as the Contact Notes). I said I hadn't and didn't know what
> they were.” So by 1986, you had read two books on Billy Meier, yet
> didn't know what the Contact Notes were. Yet you want to suggest that
> during this period (1979-86) you were researching the Meier case. Some
> research if you didn't know by 1986 what the contact notes were! Are
> you just a shoddy researcher or is your memory of meeting Alex and
> knowledge of the contact notes deficient. It seems your story is
> falling apart. I hope you can clarify here.

MH: I don't see what's in need of clarification. It is exactly as I
said and I am unaware of anything that discredits my research, the
Meier case or anything that I've presented on it. Please submit same if
you have it.

I think that this is as good a time as any to ask just why you feel so
threatened by me, unless you realize that your phony posturing on the
non-existent Collier case is going to be the undoing of whatever rise
to fame and fortune you have mistakenly assumed that you would attain
from it. Instead, you keep running into the proverbial weight room and
fastening ever-increasing tonnage to your already overburdened
credibility, further facilitating your descent into much deserved,
well-ridiculed oblivion. You're a guy whose ego has so gotten the best
of him that he hasn't stopped to consider just what a loser position he
is claiming for himself as the "researcher" of, and promoter behind...


But let's go on, as I see you're not through hammering yourself over
the head yet. It would feel better if you had the wit and wisdom to
> This takes me to your comments about the Randy Winter's video, The
> Pleiadian Connection which you allegedly co-produced. Why isn't that
> part of your bio by the way? Here is what Randy says about the video:
> "Randolph is considered an authority on the Pleiadian case. He is the
> author of the book, The Pleiadian Mission, and the video, The
> Pleiadian Connection....
> "THE PLEIADIAN CONNECTION: In 1987 Randy made a one-hour Video
> covering the Billy Meier contacts. This tape was made to be shown on
> television. Currently it runs on hundreds of small cable stations all
> over the country. Letters come from all parts of the world including
> China, Australia and Europe testifying to the inspiration of THE
> PLEIADIAN CONNECTION video tape. The tape is marketed in special order
> catalogs, bookstores and direct
> mail."
> As you see, no mention of a co-producer. Perhaps you can you give some
> evidence that you were a co-producer as opposed to someone just
> helping Randy out who appears to have been the one doing actual
> research on the Meier case.

MH: So, once again you are in effect calling me a liar. Since you claim
to be a researcher, how is it that you failed to do the...research,
i.e. pick up one of those still available videos:

and read the credits? Since you are calling me a liar, I hope you don't
mind too much that I refer to you as an...envious incompetent. Oh yeah,
when you do view the video you'll find my name on the credits in three
places, including Associate Producer. Again, you're the one who owes me
yet another apology but I'm sure that all you'll come up with is a
whining complaint as being called the kind of names that accurately
describe a sniveling little character such as yourself.

You're one of those jokers that tries to offer the contemporary version
of "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" in order to defame someone
by innuendo. Of course, considering your "research" into the "Collier
case", should anyone be surprised?

Oh yeah, what are the names of the videos you did on the Collier case,
and your "peer reviewed paper" on it too?

> Then you claim that you began doing lectures on Billy Meier from 1988.
> Well that's quite a turn around given you hadn't even heard of the
> Contact Notes after 7 years of research and reading two books. By that
> record, I calculate it would have taken you 150 years of reading to
> have anything of value to say in a lecture. Oh yes, perhaps you just
> played Randy's video and just winged the rest.

MH: Again, you're simply incorrect, and lacking in integrity, to assert
lies like that against me. Read the credits and then come back like a
nice little boy and apologize for being an idiot, again.

> Fair enough, that would be enough to say you gave a lecture on Billy,
> but it doesn't make you a 'researcher'. It would be more correct to
> say that you have had an "interest in the Meier case for over 27
> years", rather than trying to pass yourself off as a researcher.

MH: I take it that you simply haven't also taken the trouble to review
my two-hour DVD, read my nearly two-dozen articles on the case, or the
voluminous information I authored in my Newsletter and Newsletter
Archives, as well as in the published magazine articles. I would be
right about that now wouldn't I, little guy? Have you listened to my
archived radio show (, or to any
of my 7 or 8 appearances on Coast to Coast, like the four-hour one
after which Art Bell said, "“… And that is without a doubt the best
show that I think I’ve ever done on the Meier case. Actually, I didn’t
do it, I just hosted it. Michael Horn did it so he goes down as the
best spokesman for Meier that I’ve ever had on.” Did you catch any of
those, huh? Or were you too busy lecturing somewhere on the ...Alex
Collier case?

Have ya caught any of that or do you just live in a delusional bubble
of your own making when you make your petty, snide little remarks, the
sure sign of a jealous wannabe?
> Finally, you say: "As for "presenting yourself as a kind of expert on
> Meier which is very far from the truth" you're incorrect, in so far as
> I am authorized, by Meier himself, to act in his behalf. I am also in
> contact with three members of the original investigative team on an
> ongoing basis. I'd suggest that you don't try to jump on this,
> especially since you continue to jump like a kangaroo away from your
> glaringly irresponsible and fraudulent endorsement of an equally
> fraudulent Collier."
> Well this argument has to be one of the weakest you've come up with so
> far. Many organizations appoint media representatives who because of
> their skills with the media are given the responsibility to represent
> an organization or individual.

MH: Well thanks for the compliment regarding my "skills with the media"
but - sorry, I wasn't doing media presentations prior to presenting and
representing the Meier case.

Say, Mike, I don't know if I'm just one of a number of people in your
life who ask this question of you but... can you get ANYTHING right? I
mean, if you're going to criticize and attack someone, it's actually
helpful to have some knowledge of the person, and the matter, at hand.
It really is.

> That however, doesn't make one an 'expert' .

MH: I refer to myself as the Authorized American Media Representative
for the Billy Meier Contacts, which is exactly how Meier himself wants
me to represent myself and him. As for "expert" it may well be a
relative term, one that I don't throw around much myself and one that
you certainly, by definition, should be quite unfamiliar with, and
hesitant to use about, yourself.

> In the scholary community, one becomes an expert after having written
> a number of peer reviewed articles, books, etc., on a particular
> subject area. An expert is someone who maintains a degree of
> objectivity on a particular topic which is why the independent media
> approaches them.

MH: Oh, I see, you're an expert on...Alex Collier. And you're so
"objective" that you won't even explain, let alone defend, why you
support and promote him as a "genuine life long Andromedan contactee"
instead running away from the actual content of the "case"!!!!!!

> For example, I was an expert on Kosovo and East Timor during the
> 1990's and the media regularly consulted me as you can tell from my CV
> (see ) .

MH: Which begs he obvious question, if you're such an "expert" in that
field...why did you leave it to promote a bogus UFO contactee?

> You are no expert but from what I can tell even if you do consult
> genuine experts (the three investigators you mention), you are a very
> competent media representative of Billy Meier (I did enjoy your Hawaii
> lecture by the way).

MH: We can let other people determine my level of expertise and,
considering the credibility and professional standards that you've
shown so far, by getting almost everything about me and my record
wrong, I probably should be suspicious of your praise regarding my
lecture. Well, I would be if so many other people hadn't come up to me
and rated it the best one on UFO-related matters at the conference,
pardon my immodesty.
> Let me try to bring this particular discussion to a close. I see you
> vainly trying to justify your debunking of the Alex Collier case by
> confusing rhetoric with substantance.

MH: Ah, hold on there, pardner, before you close anything more than
your already closed mind, I suggest that you get off the "real
contactee" and "Alex Collier case" rhetoric and show us some...proof.
You know, the "substance" that you refer to above. So far, I don't
think you've fooled anybody and it ain't gonna get any better for ya as
long as you don't account for each and every one of those lines of
gibberish from Collier.

> Despite all your insults and dismissive comments, the facts are that a
> number of researchers believe his case has merit and is credible

MH: "Believe", the researchers, believe it "has merit and is credible"?
Wow, hold the presses! Er, just who are these "researchers" who
"believe"? I thought scientific research was about determining factual
proof, knowledge, etc. - not "belief".

> based on their own research which has involved face to face
> interviews, interviewing independent witnesses, etc.

MH: And these unnamed "researchers" (you don't mean Valerian and J.Z.,
do you?) have documented and published all of their "research"
somewhere have they, huh? You know, the ol' "peer reviewed articles,
books, etc., on a particular subject area" thingy that you refer to
above. Is that what you're tellin' all us good folks here so that your
credibility problem can just go away, we're supposed to accept this
'cause you say so?

> Furthermore, you have not met with or discussed Alex Collier's contact
> experiences with him EVER. So how can you pretend to have any
> authority as to whether he is telling the truth or not.

MH: Well, golly, ya sure got me there, lemme tell ya. I mean Collier
runs into hiding because of some "government pressure" and you chide me
for not meeting with him? Here's a guy allegedly groomed by gigantic
Andromendans since childhood for a bold mission to enlighten humanity
and, whaddya know, somebody remembers his real past and off he goes
running off into seclusion. Some hero, not exactly Meier caliber. Heck,
government types LOVE clowns like this, just like they do all those nut
cases who see fly-eating lizards lurking around the halls of power and
influence, the dreaded, sex-crazed reptilians, of whom our friend
Collier also writes knowingly. Oh yeah, you refer to some of that
reptilian stuff too, doncha? Any...proof for it? Any "peer reviewed
papers", photos, physical evidence, etc? Didn't think so.

But to answer your improperly punctuated question, I have my own (now
validated by Robinson) experiences with him, whatever name he calls
himself, and sufficient evidence that he's a bit looney. By the way,
thanks for doing the due diligence to ferret out the links where I
could find Collier's own goofy words. Say, do you think that now that
you've brought the discussion to a close, you might find the time to
address Collier's own words, predictions, etc. If you somehow lost it
(I meant the quotes, I can easily imagine that you've already lost it
over this in other ways) I can copy them over to you again, separately,
so that the folks that read this don't have to wade through them all
again, hilarious as they may be.

> As much as you jump up and down and shout phoney, fraud, hoaxer, etc.,
> that just detracts from your own integrity, and puts people off your
> ultimate goal of representing Billy Meier.

MH: Yeah, thanks for the advice. And before I wish you a happy trip
into the sunset of this "career" of yours, allow me to point out the

You mischaracterized the actual nature of when my research began, as it
did in 1979, that's a fact, as is the fact that Amagran/Collier gave me
the CNs, from which he obviously derived "inspiration".

You are completely and slanderously wrong about my work on "The
Pleiadian Connection", which you should have troubled yourself to
accurately determine before presuming to slander me.

You were wrong as to when I began presenting on the Meier case myself,
which was in 1988, not 1998.

You were also wrong about my activities researching and reporting on
the case in the period from 1988 to 1998.

You are wrong and ignorant about the actual nature and volume of my
work researching the past investigative information, researching and
corroborating the the prophetically accurate information and presenting
the results of all of this, ongoing work, in lectures, radio/TV
appearances, written articles, newsletters, published magazine
articles, DVDs, etc.

And, of course, you're painfully wrong to have defiantly stuck your
nose out there with the imaginary "Alex Collier case", supported it
with NO credible research or evidence, and expected it to not have
attracted the attention of an un-credentialed little fella who's
feeding it to you for lunch ever time you foolishly open your virtual
mouth and blunder into territory for which you are ill-prepared,
unqualified and cluelessly incapable of defending.


> Aloha, Michael Salla
> ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael
> To: ICIS-Institute for Cooperation in Space ; Exopolitics Deardorff )
> ;
> Sent: Saturday, February 04, 2006 9:58 AM
> Subject: Re: Michael Horn and Embellishing the TRuth
> Michael.
> Glad that you think that we are making progress and, as you shall see,
> the same honesty is and shall be required of you.
> Michael, we are making progress here since you got caught out
> embellishing the truth when it comes to your alleged 27 years of
> research on the Meier case. You admit: "One could indeed fault me for
> referring to the original date when I became interested in the Meier
> case as the beginning of my research, not a huge crime..."
> We might debate how much of a "huge crime" embellishing is, though I'm
> glad you admit to having done a "small crime". I think the onus on any
> researcher is to be as accurate as possible. Occasionally mistakes
> happen and we shouldn't hold it against one who makes an honest
> mistake such as recalling correct dates, job positions etc. I think
> many UFO researchers have been very hard on cases such as Col Philip
> Corso where he made some mistakes in correctly recalling events and
> positions. But what you have been doing is willfully misrepresenting
> yourself as someone who has been doing research on the Meier case for
> more than 27 years, thereby presenting yourself as a kind of expert on
> Meier which is very far from the truth.
> MH: Not at all. I was unable to FIND anything more than the two books
> on the case, which nonetheless have substantial information and food
> for thought. As for "presenting yourself as a kind of expert on Meier
> which is very far from the truth" you're incorrect, in so far as I am
> authorized, by Meier himself, to act in his behalf. I am also in
> contact with three members of the original investigative team on an
> ongoing basis. I'd suggest that you don't try to jump on this,
> especially since you continue to jump like a kangaroo away from your
> glaringly irresponsible and fraudulent endorsement of an equally
> fraudulent Collier.
> We now learn that you in fact bought a book sometime on Meier sometime
> in 1979 and did little else until 1986 when you gained a copy of
> Meier's contact notes. As for the period between 1986 to 1998 or so
> when you actively began working on the Meier case, did you publish
> anything, produce videos or anything on the Meier case that would be
> evidence of your alleged research? No, according to your bio the only
> piece of research you did on Meier was a DVD you recently produced. So
> where's the evidence that you have conducted "over 27 years research"
> on Meier?
> MH: You're incorrect again. I am the co-producer of "The Pleaidian
> Connection" videotape (with Randolph Winters) released in 1988, as I
> recall. I began lecturing on the case myself as early as 1988 and have
> continued to do so today. Is this just another pathetic example of
> your "research and footnote" technique? I'd have to say that you're
> simply an incompetent. and a rather jealous one at that, as exudes
> from your desperate attack.
> You have also embellished events when it comes to the Collier issue.
> For example, you at first claimed that I invited you to the
> prepare4contact forum to defend your comments regarding Alex Collier.
> You said:
> "Please let's remember that YOU invited me to defend my remarks about
> Collier." (Email: Nov 5, 2005). I immediately pointed out that this
> was a distortion and you then admitted that in a following email:
> "As I recall it, Linda contacted me and said that I was invited to
> defend my comments on your forum. So, whether it's a case of
> misunderstanding or whatever, I appeared and we are where we are now."
> (Email: Nov 6, 2005).
> MH: I understood that I was being invited on behalf of the forum/you,
> as is inferred above, "...Linda contacted me and said that I was
> invited to defend my comments on your forum..." I fail to see your
> point, except to attempt to shift the focus on to me and as far away
> from your pathetic avoidance of your endorsement of a lair and a
> charlatan, i.e. "Alex Collier".
> As for what appears in your email below, you make many wild
> accusations supported by little else than your own opinion concerning
> a number of 'predictions' made by Alex Collier, and very questionable
> research skills. You mistakenly ignore the evidence such as I've
> directed you to in terms of the testimony and facts outlined by Jon
> Robinson who is an independent witness:
> Robinson.htm
> MH: Why did you put predictions in quotes? Are you now denying that
> Collier made them, that they are predictions, that you ever heard of
> the guy, that Robinson's (seemingly the only person who can be
> generously called a "witness") statements mitigate or absolve
> Collier's hallucinations in any way? Why don't you deign to explain
> these predictions of Collier's to us? Don't you see what a bankrupt
> credibility account you are attempting to draw from? Really, arrogant
> fellow that you are, why do you persist, why do you avoid what you
> must account for?
> In conclusion, you have admitted to the 'minor crime' of embellishing
> the truth about your purported 27 years research on the Meier case.
> That illustrates the point I've been making for some time that you
> liberally embellish and misrepresent in order to promote your own
> biased arguments concerning contactees such as Alex Collier and your
> research expertise. My conclusion is that you have little in the way
> of research skills, but are merely a shill for the Billy Meier case.
> MH: Michael, I have up until now, seen this little exchange of ours,
> which I share with others as perhaps you do too, as merely an
> exercise, like a tennis game. Long ago I offered you the opportunity
> to disassociate yourself from the liar and coward that you STILL hang
> your hat and your dwindling credibility on. Since you have
> belligerently refused to either defend or retreat from your support of
> him, I think that it's high time that you do as I have done, present
> your case for Collier, and of course explain,defend, justify, etc. the
> lunatic items that he has authored...and that you yourself directed me
> towards as evidence of his credibility.
> Please inform me/us when you are going to make a presentation on "Alex
> Collier", as I'm sure all of us in the "UFO community" (and certain
> ready-to-leap skeptics) will be extremely interested in attending.
> Your attempt to distract away from your utter failure of credibility
> in this matter isn't helped by just attacking me.
> I need to also pint out that, unfortunately, you fell into a
> predictable little trap here. I lobbed a soft one up to you, i.e. my
> getting the book(s) in 1979 and having little else to go on until
> 1986. Because of your desperate attempt to make yourself look like an
> "expert" and squash this little un-credentialed upstart, me, you
> predictably decided to jump on me for my honesty instead of
> understanding and honoring the actual truthfulness of my statement and
> the nature of my course of investigation.
> My actual research did indeed started 27 years ago, it was no fault of
> mine that little was available to me until Ralph Amagran gave met the
> CNs in 1986. As you can see, I made some significant leaps once I had
> the information and when my research and interest led me to Randy
> Winters. You hold in your own mind some mythical, unspecified
> qualification of how many pages, documents, etc. one should have seen
> in order to qualify as having researched the case. By your unspoken
> definition, anyone looking for a treasure that they didn't
> find...wasn't really looking for it. And anyone studying what they
> had, however little, wasn't studying. I liken this to learning T'ai
> Chi. It so happened that I had the occasion to learn a few opening
> moves of a T'ai Chi form some years ago but it wasn't until a few
> years later I had the opportunity to learn more of the form, though I
> always practiced the ones I already had learned. You'd be surprised at
> how much one can gain from practicing with what one has.
> Likewise, the food for thought, photos, information about the testing,
> metal, history, etc., contained in the first books was sufficient to
> open my mind, to get me to contemplate and think, things that
> apparently hold little interest or value for you, certainly not as
> much as wanting to throw your credentials - and shallow phoniness -
> around.
> You show an aversion, therefore, to the simple truth and to someone
> open and willing to state it, even when he foresaw the petty,
> small-minded and self-elevating attack that would come from someone,
> of such minute ethical stature as yourself, for doing so. But that
> seems to be one of the differences in standards between us, you are so
> invested in propping up your ego-inflated self-image, of flaunting
> your "credentials" and of trying to scramble to the top of some
> imaginary heap that you effectively demonstrate the antithesis of
> everything the Meier case, and I, stand for. And this field of study,
> UFOs, "exopolitics" seems ripe for, and rife with, poseurs such as
> yourself, especially since there are de facto clubs formed where
> people can readily agree on how nice the emperor's clothes are, people
> who apparently know little about either fashion or nakedness, as in
> truth.
> So, once again, you miss the opportunity to not take your pompous,
> condescending little self quite so seriously. You think that the best
> defense is a vigorous offense, one that constitutes attacking me for
> the simple, truthful nature of my experience, how and what constituted
> my seminal introduction and research. You misstate facts about my
> accomplishments, my representation of the Meier case, of anything that
> you possibly can. Such transparent motives!
> But one thing that my study of Meier and his life has taught me is
> that he has had a remarkable forbearance in suffering fools, to a
> certain point, of course. And it appears that I get to practice this
> one too, for life has sent me a supreme fool, in the person of you,
> Dr. Michael Salla.
> MH
> Aloha,
> Michael
> ----- Original Message ----- From: Michael
> To: Exopolitics Deardorff ) ;
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 4:13 PM
> Subject: Re: Michael Horn and Embellishing the TRuth
> I see, I misrepresent our communications? Well you certainly are
> worked up about this, so let me help you out.
> Michael, you continuely misrepresent our communications. You say:
> "First, you were the one who referred me to Collier's nonsensical
> gibberish! " I thought you had written about Alex in 1998 and thought
> his contactee claims were baloney then. So your email confirms that
> you reached conclusions about Alex's contactee claims prior to reading
> his material which at some point you took the time to read. So much
> for any kind of research method. That's illustrative of my point that
> you're just an armchair theorist throwing around a lot of mud in the
> hope that people mistake energy and determination for method and
> integrity.
> MH: Nice try. But...let me be more specific, since you are obviously
> having apoplexy over your ever-solidifying link to the lunacy of
> Collier's own screwy words, which you did indeed direct me to - again
> even as recently as your last scholarly missive a mere few hours ago!
> It is a common problem for the over-credentialed (lacking as they
> often do common sense) to launch into misdirection as a tactic to
> divert attention from their own befuddled arguments.
> As you well know, I was referring to the body of gibberish that you
> offered (and still offer!) as evidence of Collier's authenticity. My
> comments in 1998 that attracted your attention were quite minor and
> referred to the obvious lifting of elements in the Meier material by
> him, as I saw from a few brief paragraphs that were on some internet
> site or other. However, you made the foolish mistake of directing me
> to all of that looney stuff that you now want to take no
> responsibility for.
> I had long forgotten the joker until you had the desire to hold me
> accountable for goring your sacred ox, who is in reality merely
> throwing around a lot of bull. But by making available all of the
> Collier gibberish you yourself sealed his fate, and your lack of
> credibility, in my mind, and quite a few others.
> You have little of the latter two qualities but much of the former
> two. You are debunker that hides behind the facade of being a media
> representative for one contactee who himself debunks other contactees.
> MH: Some therapeutic intervention is in order here. I feel your pain.
> You're touting a guy as a genuine contactee who is worthy of not one
> inch of space in any credible study (and doesn't appear in any), who
> makes sorry excuses for not standing behind his own preposterous bilge
> and, in the other corner, wearing a contented smile, sits l'il ol' me,
> happily presenting the most important story in all of human history to
> the world at large...and I don't even have any initials after my name,
> not even Jr. Boy, no wonder you're all steamed up!
> And what is your big complaint? That Meier "debunks other contactees",
> which acknowledges Meier as a genuine contactee, which we all know.
> But what other contactees are you talking about? You're Mr.
> Professional here, might you not put some facts in evidence, or are we
> to simply take your word for it, like you take Collier's? We've seen
> just what kind of hot water you've immersed yourself in from that so,
> since we (I know, I'm doing the royal we thing but don't youse
> educated guys do that a lot?) expect professional conduct from y'all,
> might you not document your claim against Meier? Take your time, it's
> got to be out there somewhere,
> As for taking comments out of context, and that I sent you his
> comments, again a misrepresentation. I gave you some links to Alex's
> available internet material. You went through and cherry picked what
> you thought would most illustrate your debunking efforts. So don't
> misrepresent things and say I sent you Alex's comments.
> MH: Ah ha, a little semantics here, eh? Well, since I did send you
> Collier's own words (we're in agreement about that, right?), from the
> links that you gave me (we're in agreement about that, right?), for
> some presumed purpose like, oh I don't know, establishing his
> credibility, I think it's quite fair to say that unless you do want to
> be tarred by the same brush it's not wise to reference that junk,
> footnote happy as you may be. And, since the info was from his
> material, cherry picked or not, why won't you stand behind the only
> "evidence" you've presented for this nut case? Perhaps you have some
> equally voluminous amount of credible material from him that could be
> used to salvage both your reputations?
> As for my reputation and tying it to Alex's bandwagon, again another
> misrepresentation. I think he, along with a great number of other
> contactees are credible.
> MH: Pardon armoire (that's French for excuse my tall cupboard) but
> you've failed to establish (as in provide credible evidence for) that
> he is a contactee, other or otherwise. And you say that you're...a
> scientist?
> I have at no point attached my reputation to any one contactee or
> whistleblower. I merely defend the credibility of a great number of
> whistleblowers/contactees that I think meet a minimum threshold
> criteria for enabling exopolitical analysis of their information. Alex
> like many others meets my minimum threshold criteria. Reputations are
> not so easily made or lost as you would like to think.
> MH: The term mumbo-jumbology (coined by Leon Rubenhold) comes to mind
> when I read the above. The only criteria that Alex appears to meet is
> being a certifiable whack job. Of course, you may have far lower
> "threshold criteria" than I do, especially since the criteria
> established in/by the Meier case are truly stellar, a nice choice
> terms considering the topic. And you may be surprised just how fast a
> reputation, such as yours, can sink into the sunset when you try to
> foist blatantly bogus information off on those of us who actually
> value thinking and reasoning above making just such a fractured
> "reputation" for themselves.
> As for similarities in the Meier and Collier material, that's strange,
> I thought they both are claiming to have had contact with advanced
> extraterrestrial races. The fact that these races may have similar
> technologies and/or contact methods would be something that lends
> credence to a contactee's testimony. As for the suggestion of
> plagiarism, one has to conclusively show this and not just make the
> claim and expect a detailed refutation. You have not conclusively
> shown Alex has plagiarised Billy, just made some accusations.
> MH: Can we have a reality break here, even if it's just for one
> moment? Are you really trying to compare the claims of man with zero
> evidence, as well as no credibility, with someone as thoroughly
> documented, investigated, tested and analyzed as Meier and his
> information? Don't you have even a wee little twinge of concern that
> NO ONE outside of yourself and Harris refer to this Collier guy as a
> "genuine contactee"? Aren't ya just a little curious as to why that
> is? Could it be because he's so bogus that he doesn't warrant any
> mention from serious investigators? Have you given Wendelle Stevens or
> the Elders a call yet to get them interested in researching the
> "Collier case"?
> As for Collier's interview with Paola Harris, I don't see anything
> wrong in someone communicating that they may be confused over certain
> aspects of their contacts. Throwing insults such as schizoprenia are
> again a sign of how shoddy your analysis is and that you are merely
> debunking.
> MH: Do you "see anything wrong" with Collier's own words, you know,
> the ones that you keep trying to avoid but which, like the
> inextricable pull of a powerful vortex, are drawing your moment of
> accountability closer and closer...while you busy yourself with trying
> to belittle pleasant and peaceful me?
> Here is more of how you misrpesent things. You say: "When you and
> others on your forum called me a liar, claimed that Collier had never
> met me, was never known as Ralph, didn't give me (and plagiarize from)
> the Contact..." For a start, I think you embellish quite liberally.
> That is different to lying if you bothered to consult an English
> dictionary. For example, you claim to have researched the Meier case
> for 27 years, but say that you had never heard of the contact notes
> when Alex gave them to you in 1986. Here's what you said:
> "I mentioned that I had the (first) photo book and then Alex (Ralph at
> the time) asked
> me if I'd read the Contact Reports (mainly referred to at the time as
> the Contact Notes)."
> If you do the math that means that you had been researching Meier
> since 1979, but only heard of the contact notes in 1986. Yet you say
> you have been researching the Meier case. What did you do? By a book
> of his UFO photos and stare at them for 7 years?
> MH: Well, at last I can see a reasonable objection from you! One could
> indeed fault me for referring to the original date when I became
> interested in the Meier case as the beginning of my research, not a
> huge crime but I've got to give a guy a break, especially when he's in
> as deep a hole as you are. Okay, I couldn't find anything more for
> some time. The second book came out, someone I knew had it, I read
> both of them, all the quotes, etc. but, by golly, it really wasn't
> until 1986 - when Ralphie generously gave me the Contact Notes - that
> the deeper work began. And look at all the trouble you find yourself
> in because he did! I give the poor dope credit for giving me the CN,
> you attack me for telling the truth, you champion his lies and
> delusions and here we are - with your credibility slowly swirling down
> the toilet because you couldn't leave well enough alone! Wow, talk
> about poetic justice.
> No, you had to go rattle my cage, call me out in some misguided
> attempt to bolster your status and image and instead it's all
> unraveling like an old sweater. Funny thing, I would have never gotten
> on your or Harris' cases, I would have never exposed Collier for the
> laughing stock he is if you hadn't of thought that I was some easy
> mark that you debunk, and perhaps later write a nice pice with some
> footnotes about it.
> If you read any of the investigators such as Wendelle Stevens, etc.,
> they would have mentioned the contact notes.
> MH: Perbacco! As I already said, I didn't read them until later, since
> Stevens' books were also just hitting the shelves in the early 1980s.
> Basically, you are embellishing the truth when you say you've been
> researching Meier for 27 years. I think you should take down that
> little twist of the truth from your offical bio and basically say you
> stared at Meier's photo's for seven years before you learned that he
> actually had some contact notes in 1986. Wow, some researcher.
> MH: Well excuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuse me! They're very lovely photos and I
> enjoyed looking at them. But one thing is for certainly
> weren't looking at Collier's (non-existent) photos, now were you?
> You are a joke and we both know it.
> MH: The real joke here is that you would have been far better off
> staring at anything for seven years rather than sticking both feet in
> your mouth with this Collier farce. And we both do indeed know that.
> I won't bother to go on Michael since my point is clear. You
> misrepresent, insult, hurl slurs and embellish. You have little
> credibility and have a great credibility gap when compared to someone
> like Alex.
> MH: Please post Collier's credibility content, you know, the stuff
> that even slightly compares to my own resume and credentials,
> credentials and experience sufficient to also have earned me a State
> of California teaching credential, one of not too many people who have
> qualified for that. But do go on, show me that "credibility gap." Will
> I have wait as long as it's gonna take you to explain the bridge on
> Venus, the missing moon and the zillions of kids being sucked up off
> the planet by evil ETs? Will I have to wait as long as it's gonna take
> you to produce proof of "reptilians", etc.? Oh do tell!
> Contrary to wannabees like you, Alex is a genuine contactee.
> MH: One thing that I can confidently say that he and I DO have in
> common is that...neither of us are "genuine contactees."
> Now, I suggest that if you want to be taken seriously, you apologize
> to everyone (especially in your organization) for all of this Collier
> nonsense and allow us all to be generous and forgive you for your
> transgressions, lapses in good judgment and for unleashing that
> "flaming" "bad netiquetting" mad dog of a fellow, yours truly.
> MH
> Aloha, Michael
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael
> To: Exopolitics
> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2006 9:49 AM
> Subject: Re: Michael Horn and Embellishing the TRuth
> Michael,
> Sorry, I guess it's my non-political, non-diplomatic,
> cut-through-the-crap, real life "training" that doesn't allow me to
> swallow such double talk as you attempt to hide behind. First, you
> were the one who referred me to Collier's nonsensical gibberish! So
> please don't attempt to semantically disassociate yourself from it
> now. And let's drop the euphemisms, another pitfall of "diplomacy and
> politics" to be sure, I don't find his quotes "objectionable", I find
> them delusional, nonsensical and, as you obviously do, indefensible.
> And there's nothing "petty" about holding a poseur like you
> accountable for your words and actions.
> The baloney about "out of context passages" doesn't wash, again, you
> sent me to read them! And funny thing, I've never heard Meier complain
> about being taken out of context. In what context are Collier's
> statements supposed to make sense, in a mental ward? As for research,
> I've spent a good deal of time over the past six years with Meier and
> various witnesses, have known the primary investigators in the case
> (Lee & Brit Elders) for almost 20 years and Wendelle Stevens for about
> 10 years. Funny thing, none of them give any credence to Collier and
> his claims and Meier, who is a genuine contactee, specifically refers
> to him as a fraud.
> But you're free to tie your wagon, and your reputation, to him and
> refer to him as a "contactee" since you must be a far better, more
> credible "researcher" than all of us combined. After all, you have the
> "formal academic training" and we don't. On some level it must gall
> you to be stuck to him now like the tar baby.
> I read Collier's comments about black holes and found them interesting
> but not conclusive proof of contact, and they certainly don't offset
> the lunacy of his information. Meier's information regarding black
> holes, from 1995 (Contact 251), is more far reaching.
> But since you, once again, direct me to Collier's own words, may I
> point out that his story is "strangely" reminiscent of Meier's (as was
> to be found in the Contact Notes that Collier himself gave me). Here
> are some examples that echo, almost exactly, what Meier published, in
> around 1975, about his experiences as a five year-old boy:
> Collier: They put something on my head which looked like a cap. But it
> had a hole in the
> center like a donut and it fit my head. It was a metallic structure...
> Collier: It immediately started showing me these scenes. It was like
> movie
> clips. And that I knew almost instinctively that it was past lives.
> They
> wanted me to know who I was and my relationship to them and they were
> showing me, and it is already in the brain.
> Here we have some evidence of what might really be happening to
> Collier (schizophrenia?):
> Collier: Because of my relationship with them and the time I spent
> with them, I
> was able to hear thoughts. I used to tune into them and scream "stay
> away from my head" because I used to hear the thoughts.
> Harris: Do you do that now?
> Collier: Sometimes. Sometimes .
> So it appears that the confusion is both yours and Collier's. And,
> speaking of Collier (since this is about the only place that he will
> be spoken of) since he's a "genuine contactee", I suppose you could do
> a four-hour presentation on him. No? How's about three, or two, or
> one? Could you do five minutes? Could you do radio interviews on this
> clown? Why not?
> As for my reference to you as passive-aggressive, I stand by it. When
> you and others on your forum called me a liar, claimed that Collier
> had never met me, was never known as Ralph, didn't give me (and
> plagiarize from) the Contact Notes, etc. you took the word of someone
> now revealed as a liar, fantasist and possibly a schizophrenic - yet
> you found my outrage to be "bad netiquette", "flaming", etc.! Your
> "formal academic training" apparently didn't cover a few things, such
> as how a normal, healthy individual responds to being slandered by
> controlling people who are too lazy to have done their homework and
> too ego-driven to admit that they're wrong. In case I'm being too
> subtle, I'm referring to you.
> There's nothing "thugish" about standing up to your smary kind of
> bullying. I guarantee you that you're not the kind of guy who would
> try that crap to my face, after all, you're a...diplomat. As for your
> further slander below, "...and are little more than an internet thug
> that has jumped on the Meier case to promote yourself. You are pretty
> transparent in terms of your motives to get attention..." are you
> really that deluded? "Jumped on the Meier case", after 27 years of
> research? Millions of people from 85 countries have visited my site in
> pursuit of English language information on the Meier case. Really, are
> you so self-absorbed that you don't know the magnitude of the case or
> my involvement and real motives? Do you think that you can drag me
> down to your level, i.e. someone who promotes a schizo-fraud, again
> refers me to his interview - and still won't even defend the man's
> words?
> Now pay attention, you are dealing in theoretical "exopolitical"
> matters (at best). The Meier case is a real and still ongoing
> extraterrestrial contact case, rather "exopolitical" by any
> definition. You make it painfully apparent that credentials don't
> guarantee credibility. Your actual motives, envy, desire for
> prominence, etc. are palpable and obvious.
> The more stubbornly you hold on to this Collier nonsense, the more
> damage you do to the credibility of the organization. And your
> referral to information dealing with "reptilians" is certainly going
> to elevate your standing in the scientific community, especially
> considering that not a single scale of proof for this (more than
> likely disinfo campaign) has ever been presented, certainly not by
> you. I wonder how fast you'll back-pedal on that when you're publicly
> challenged.
> Oh yeah, do I need to remind you that Meier doesn't have the "formal
> academic training" that you think distinguishes you in some (positive)
> way? It didn't stop him from being at the center of the most important
> story in all of human history...but your "training" apparently stifled
> your ability to see and understand that.
> Thuggishly yours,
> MH
> As for your efforts to describe my communications as 'passive
> aggressive', more nonsense from you. I'm a recognised scholar who has
> been trained to debate with one's intellectual peers a whole range of
> political science issues, exopolitics is clearly one of these as the
> term suggests. You have no formal academic training, no history of
> working with others in an intellectual community, and are little more
> than an internet thug that has jumped on the Meier case to promote
> yourself. You are pretty transparent in terms of your motives to get
> attention which is why I don't post our little conversations to a
> wider audience. You won't get me contributing to your self destructive
> need for 'controversy'. You have little to contribute to exopolitics
> unless you radically change your thuggish behavior.
> Aloha Michael Salla
> From: Michael
> To: ;
> Sent: Thursday, February 02, 2006 3:37 PM
> Subject: Re: Michael Horn and Embellishing the TRuth
> Michael,
> Again, you're seeing things that simply aren't there; should I be
> surprised? I'm unaware of having insulted any genuine researchers, I'm
> sure that they would speak for themselves and let me know. But it is
> refreshing to see the aggressive side of your passive-aggressiveness
> surface, at the possible risk of the same, dire ostracism of which you
> warn, once your associates become aware of your bad netiquette.
> Perhaps you've confused this work with some kind of popularity
> contest? But why should we quibble? Instead, please take the
> opportunity to explain your support for the following and your
> directing your hostility towards me (for pointing it out) instead of
> at the idiot author of this tripe. But first, why not check and see if
> the moon is still in orbit. Okay, this is your big chance to join the
> ranks of genuine researchers, so...defend:
> I have information regarding mission children. If nothing else should
> make you angry, it should be that hundreds of thousands of children
> each year are vanishing from our planet.
> The moon is an artificial satellite brought here from Ursa Minor. It's
> hollow and operational, and it can pull out of here any time. Human
> beings from Earth have been there for at least 45 years. It started
> with the Germans, but primarily it was the Americans and the Russians.
> The Germans moved on to Mars.
> We are told that it is 4,200 miles in diameter. Morenae says that is
> an absolute lie, that it is 11,421 miles in diameter, and that our
> people know about this. (MH: WRONG!)
> When the extraterrestrials get here, sometime next year (1997) or the
> year after, when they physically land and they start showing
> themselves,
> This bridge is 21 miles long. You will see this same structure on
> Venus.
> See these structures. Ladies and gentlemen, this is where the New
> World Order is on the moon. This complex has 35,000 human beings from
> Earth in it, right now. These are living compounds. The Andromedans
> are very clear about this, because they want you to wake up.
> The monument, since the moon came from Ursa Minor, is Orion in origin.
> Now, our moon used to share an orbit with Phobos. Both of them are
> artificial satellites.
> Between 1996 and the end of 1997, there is a very strong possibility
> that one third of Japan is going to sink below the ocean surface in a
> very violent earthquake.
> Between June and October of 2003, there is a strong probability we
> will wake up one morning and the moon will no longer be in orbit.
> During the next seven years, between 1996 and 2004, the major cities
> in the United States will be under quarantine because of the spread of
> tuberculosis. The average life expectancy of men in the inner cities
> will be 43 years of age, and for women 55. You are going to see the
> end of welfare, free medical and county services, because everybody
> will be bankrupt.
> They said that somewhere around the beginning of December 2013, third
> density will implode. It will implode.
> According to the Andromedans, our physicality is the sum total of 22
> different races that have come down here, spend the "weekend", messed
> with us and then took off and went home.
> Blue bloods: Their blood is copper-based. That's ET. OK?
> As most of you know, the "AIDS" virus was created.
> There is life as we speak on Uranus, right now. There's life. Plant
> life and animal life.
> Apparently we all had copper-based blood systems at one time. All of
> our physiology was based on copper. We were all "blue-bloods". We were
> all royalty.
> Even earth was moved from its orbit - twice. There is a possibility
> that they want to do it again. The "flood of Noah" was a result of the
> moving of earth from its original orbit. That is was caused it. We are
> talking about huge ships that can move planets. They have this
> technology.
> This aggression occurred against those on your worlds that included
> not only you Terrans, but also those called Niburu.
> Nibiru won, but only a short battle, before they and other outposts
> were forced to leave (the solar system) because of genetic damage.
> Your original races were green-skinned. This we know, because of large
> copper traces in your Terran 22 blood type (refers to the composite of
> human genetics which comprise genetic codes from 22 humanoid species).
> Your system contained three suns at that time. Only two remain (one is
> on the opposite side of the visible sun, and rotates in such a way
> that it is hidden from view from the perspective of the Earth).
> Your true (original) blood color was green, like your chlorophyll.
> Some, we have discovered, even had (blood of a) gold tint.
> The genetic changes were the result of radiation damage. Your race
> (skin color) went from green, to red (Native Americans, Egyptians and
> Mayans), to yellow (Asians), to black (Afro-Americans and Africans),
> and then to white.
> The red is the closest to the original form among you. Your
> physicality had a natural defense to positive and negative frequencies
> (due to the) copper mineral in your blood (resistance to
> electromagnetic variation). This lack (now) of copper in your blood
> has caused a partial loss of brain capacity and nervous system
> (capacity). Remember (that) your DNA contains cellular memory. It is
> possible to unlock this memory with (the) use of minerals such as
> copper. Your blood systems (are) adapted (now) to iron, because of
> copper depletion due to (ambient) radiation. We will share more, but
> we must return now.
> Some of the missing children on this planet have not only been taken
> by the Greys, by Orion, but also by the Pleaidians. Now, apparently in
> the systems in Aldebaran, there are human Terran colonies. The
> Pleaidians have taken human children from here.
> What's happening is that third density is beginning to implode because
> as the frequency of third density matter starts to rise, those that
> choose to evolve will pass out of here.
> There are other races, the Pleaidians for example, that in 982 years
> will start to show genetic breakdown, because of so much
> interbreeding.
> Whatever we do here on third density moving into fifth density, we
> will literally changes all the dimensions above us in a domino effect
> all the way up,
> The name "Gabriel" was the name of another fleet of craft, and so on.
> They will start with a magnetic pole shift, which could happen anytime
> between now and the year 2001.
> they have told all of the negative extraterrestrials in and on our
> planet, and the moon, to be out of here no later than August 12, 2003.
> I have also been told that there is a very high probability that we
> could wake up some morning in that area of time and our moon will not
> be there.
> That is because the moon is the first stage of defense, and that they
> will literally hit it with a tractor beam and pull it out of orbit if
> they are going to do battle.
> I am told that most of the dinosaurs were brought here, and to Mars,
> where they came first. Our current human form was crafted on Mars,
> where the primate and human genes were combined, and then brought to
> earth to work as slaves in the mines.
> They enjoy human flesh, and human children best, for two reasons. The
> first is that children don't have the accumulation of pollutants in
> their bodies that adults do, and when children are put into a state of
> fear, their energy and field and andrenylin just explodes. The
> reptilians get a "rush" from this stuff.
> And folks, there are bases on the moon that have been built by the
> United States, Russia and the British, using British money. I suggest
> you keep an eye on Prince Charles.
> Q: I am wondering if you could elaborate on the Draconians and
> Hale-Bopp a little bit.
> A: What I have shared is really all I know. I just know that life is
> going to be very different here. The media says it is a 'comet'. It's
> not a comet. I can tell you that it has split into two pieces, and
> both pieces are rotating around a common axis as its moving. I have
> heard, but not confirmed, that an astronomer has seen a large craft
> that is now flying alongside Hale-Bopp, that is larger than the earth.
> So, if it doesn't change course, its going to be great. All the denial
> will be gone.
> Q: Where is the second sun?
> A: It is behind the sun that we see. It is smaller than the sun we see
> and lies behind it. If you are standing on Mars, you see it, ok? Now,
> the reason our planet was moved is because the planet could not handle
> the radiation from two suns after the last war. So, they moved it.
> When I asked Morenae who moved the earth, his response was that it was
> something the Pleaidians had to answer.
> Val: I thought the basic concept was that we didn't need to be "saved"
> from anything - that how everything turns out, from the Andromedan
> perspective, is already a "done deal". We eventually "pass the test"
> and after 2003 everything is fine and the regressive tyranny is
> stamped out. I presume that is what is being inferred is that it is
> already a "done deal."? I mean,that's what is being inferred, isn't
> it?
> AC: Yes.
> AC: I wrestle with that one myself. I honestly don't know. Apparently,
> certain things are predetermined but other things are not, and their
> might be a time where they need to come in and help us.
> Val: That time would presumably be before or after August 12, 2003?
> Galactic Interplay Behind the Scenes
> AC: Or, around August 12, 2003. Many of these groups here are the ones
> who will be involved. The Tau Ceti group has wanted to invade this
> planet already and go after not only some of the regressives, but more
> importantly factions of the United States government.
> AC: Well, there's more. They also found more than 1,000 human children
> that had been placed in cryogenic stasis, and over 1,000,000 of these
> little boxes that contained the life forces of souls from Earth.
> Val: Captured human souls.
> AC: Souls.
> Val: And what do they do with these souls?
> AC: They feed off the energy radiated by the souls. What they are
> doing, Val, is that they are taking the life force and they are
> somehow siphoning it off a little at a time and feeding it to the
> hybrids in order to keep them alive, trying to keep them alive and
> create a soul in them.
> Val: Meanwhile, what happens to the soul in the box?
> Val: What about us? We pass the test and those who do not go to fifth
> density create another 3rd density holographic reality to continue to
> play the game until they mature beyond that. In that light, what does
> happen to all of us?
> AC: My understanding is that all of us become teachers.
> Val: All of us?
> AC: Yes. We all go to different parts of physicality in fifth density.
> Val: And become teachers. Because of this experience we have had on
> Earth?
> AC: Yes.
> AC: Yes it would. The bottom line is that you won't know who you are
> or where you're going until you get there, and we're all going to be
> in that boat together.
> Val: How soon will that be?
> AC: It could be as early as April of 1997. It's probably going to be
> sooner, but April of 1997 I was told would be the highest probability.
> Val: That's about the time Hale-Bopp arrives.
> AC: Yes. Hale-Bopp will be here in February-March 1997.
> Val: So, a lot of other things will happen around the same time.
> AC: Yes.
> AC: Yes it would. The bottom line is that you won't know who you are
> or where you're going until you get there, and we're all going to be
> in that boat together.
> Val: How soon will that be?
> AC: It could be as early as April of 1997. It's probably going to be
> sooner, but April of 1997 I was told would be the highest probability.
> Val: That's about the time Hale-Bopp arrives.
> AC: Yes. Hale-Bopp will be here in February-March 1997.
> Val: So, a lot of other things will happen around the same time.
> AC: Yes.
> AC: But, there's a much higher agenda here. It obviously involves us
> as souls, but it also has to do with something that is very strategic
> about this solar system. I will tell you why so many people are
> interested in this solar system. We have some
> strange planets here. Not only is Earth unique because of all the life
> forms here, but according to Morenae, when we as Paa Tal came down
> from a higher density to inhabit these bodies in third density, we
> used a type of vehicle to travel from where we were to where we are
> now. A type of vehicle. They say that the planet Jupiter was the
> vehicle we used.
> Val: Which is also now a sun on fifth density.
> AC: Yes.
> Val: So, what happens next? Everything must turn out fine after 2003,
> because they're looking at from a position in time.
> AC: Yes. We're going to go through some stuff, and I don't know how
> its exactly going to play out, but they have said on more than one
> occasion that they are very proud of us in the end, as a race.
> Michael, I see your strategy, insult genuine researchers so that you
> fail to get invitations to conferences, organizations, get kicked out
> of forums, etc., so you can then complain about being censored, black
> balled, etc. I think you are in the midst of some thanatos
> self-destruction instinct and probably don't even realize it. Good
> luck with your future therapy sessions or have you already started?
> Aloha, Michael
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael
> To: Exopolitics
> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 8:11 PM
> Subject: Re: some thoughts re Michael Horn, from Jim, Alfred, Tom
> Michael,
> Someone who fantasizes, plagiarizes and hides from being accountable
> for his thoroughly inaccurate words doesn't exactly fit my definition
> of either integrity or achieving something "special" least not in
> a positive way. As for my having failed "to find" that, since you wish
> to avoid dealing with the delusional words of the phony you support,
> your opinion means less than nothing to me. I stand behind what I say
> and I stand for something of worth, you run from the hallucinatory
> nonsense you yourself directed me towards - with not one word of
> apology for promoting a liar.
> However, since you have pointed out the integrity and achievement
> issues I'll submit the following, a partial resume:
> Michael Horn is the Authorized American Media Representative for the
> Billy Meier Contacts (, which he has researched for
> over 27 years (and proved to be absolutely authentic) and is the
> writer, producer and narrator of the new DVD "The Meier Contacts - The
> Key To Our Future Survival". His very eclectic background includes:
> prize-winning painter, designer/creator of the still popular fashion
> fad "fingernail art" (featured in Harper's Bazaar magazine),
> award-winning songwriter, one of the first creators of digital online
> book publishing (ebooks), music and video producer, science
> researcher, national and international lecturer, frequent media guest,
> writer, humorist, pioneer in commercial water purification
> applications (Starbucks), set designer, health care professional,
> creator of the Future Self interactive therapeutic video technique,
> creator of the Standing In Spirit regenerative movement/stress relief
> program (which Michael also taught to corporate and government leaders
> in Europe at the invitation of a consultant to Princess Diana),
> creator/teacher of the Sit & Get Fit videotapes and program for
> seniors (, as well as for personnel at U.S.
> corporations like Xerox. Michael has been featured in two issues of
> the international martial arts magazine INSIDE KUNG FU demonstrating
> advanced strength and flexibility Chi Gong exercises and has had
> articles published in Nexus, Mystic Pop and UFO magazines. He is based
> in Los Angeles. Additionally, Michael Horn's new song CD of all
> original songs, “More Than Just Survival" has just been released. The
> featured single "Forgive Yourself" is already enjoying national
> airplay.
> I accomplished much of this - and more - while I raised my daughter by
> myself, starting when she was 10 months old. She now runs my
> businesses for me.
> As for my spinning anything, it really isn't necessary, Meier's the
> real deal, Collier isn't, and no one with any credibility thinks
> otherwise. As for my representing Meier, it's not a hard job. As a
> matter of fact, it isn't a job at all, it's a self-chosen, voluntary
> effort that I freely and willingly devote my time to. In case you're
> the only one who hasn't noticed yet, there is no "Collier case" and no
> evidence for one. You simply use my politically incorrect revelation
> about that as an excuse to transfer the attention away from your
> nakedly bankrupt and fraudulent perpetuation of his hoax into an
> attack on me for my "bad netiquette".
> So, since you find my language so "foul", allow me to convey the
> following in words that are accurately descriptive, yet devoid of any
> profanity. You're a condescending, pompous and thoroughly ineffectual
> twit, one who fancies himself some kind of an "authority" but doesn't
> have the courage - or integrity - to back it up.
> And it may surprise you to know that I'm not in any hurry to join a
> club that would have you as a "leader", nor do I lose sleep over which
> forums will or won't have me.
> I suggest that you stay in your "can't we all just get along" mode and
> not come to do battle, whether it be one of wits or facts, as you are
> clearly far less than half-prepared for either.
> MH
> Aloha, Michael
> From: Michael
> To: Exopolitics (by way of Jim Deardorff <>)
> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 1:13 PM
> Subject: Re: some thoughts re Michael Horn, from Jim, Alfred, Tom
> Hi Jim,
> Thanks for that info, I didn't know that I was so "popular". And
> you're right, I'm not exactly begging to join an organization,
> especially one that seems to have some issues inherent with certain
> higher ups.
> And for all that Salla carried on about, it must be said again that
> neither he nor Harris have EVER addressed the Coliier crap (his own
> words) yet he wants to pontificate about me and my insulting language.
> This is like watching George Bush absolve himself of any blame, or
> similar irresponsibility by others in any levels of office. It's
> inexcusable and provides the Achilles heel for the credibility of the
> organization. Really, this guy takes Collier's word over mine and he
> won't even touch the very information that self-indicts him.
> If I give any more thought to this I'll get even more steamed than I
> am.
> BEst!
> MH
> You've been under discussion by Alfred, Salla and others the past few
> days, so in case you're interested, here's most of it. With his
> latest, Salla has now closed off discussion.
> Jim
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
> From Salla:
> Dear Jim, Eric, Alfred, and all, rather than getting distracted by
> another debate on Michael Horn or inviting him to join this
> discussion, I recommend that this issue is revisited at the end of the
> year when and if Michael Horn is renominated to Exopolitics Institute.
> In the meantime, I think it wise for us to channel our energies into
> supporting constructive projects such as Alfred's UN Decade of
> Contact, rather being side tracked on divisive issues that have
> already been extensively discussed, and do little to promote
> cooperation between us.
> Aloha, Michael
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Jim Deardorff
> To: Eric Julien ; Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd
> Cc: Exopolitics ; Ed Komarek ; Paola Harris ; Thomas Hansen
> Sent: Wednesday, February 01, 2006 6:17 AM
> Subject: Re: some thoughts re Michael Horn, from Jim, Alfred, Tom
> Hi Eric and Alfred,
> I'll try to fill in some more on your (Eric's) questions besides what
> Alfred did, since Michael Horn (MH) isn't allowed on this list to be
> able to do so himself.
> First, I don't think that MH "needs" to join the E.I. advisory board.
> As representative of Meier in the U.S., his task is to get the truth
> of the Meier contacts and their implications out to the public as best
> as possible. If he thinks that the EI has sufficient credibility, then
> he should seriously consider joining it, if invited; if not, he
> probably wouldn't feel it would be helpful. Instead, the question
> should be, does the EI need MH on its advisory board? It would seem
> so, if it is to make use of the knowledge of the most highly verified
> contactee.
> MH would be able to quote from Meier's Contact Reports where Meier was
> told of other genuine contactees besides himself; he isn't the "only
> one." But he was indeed told that he's the only contactee of the
> Pleadians/Plejarens that they have been interacting with, in our era.
> The truth of this, along with all else he was told, is of course open
> to question by us all. The question MH might pose, is: Should we in
> any way be comparing channeled material of Barbara Marciniac, e.g.,
> who's been told that she's the messenger of the Pleiadians but has no
> evidential support of this status, with the messages of Meier, whose
> physical contacts with the Plejarens are well attested
> ( )?
> We come now to this statement: <<In an other hand, the purpose of
> Exopolitics Institute is to collectively study the cases, not to
> declare that there is only one contactee in the world, and that
> contactee is the Jesus incarnation. Michael Horn, as "US
> representative of this contactee" follows probably an agenda which
> seems not to match the one of Exopolitics Institute.>>
> I've already pointed out that "only one contactee in the world"
> doesn't accord with the messages Meier has received. Part of MH's job
> as representative is to correct distortions that continually try to
> creep into the case. So he could correct you on that as well as
> reemphasize that Meier absolutely does not consider himself the
> reincarnation of "Jesus," because the "Jesus" we know from the Gospels
> is such a gross distortion of the truth that it becomes a different
> person than Immanuel/Jmmanuel. A part of Meier's mission appears to be
> to get the truth out _and_ to try to keep distortions from creeping
> back in.
> Regarding "collectively studying the cases," this only makes sense if
> it is done comprehensively and quantitatively, not just in a
> qualitative, diplomatic style that regards all alleged contactees as
> having comparable levels of trustworthiness. I think MH would take
> this more scientific approach.
> You wrote, Eric, that <<I don't know why he [Meier] needs something
> else. If he is what he claims to be, governments would have to
> negociate diplomatic concerns with him. And maybe it is the case.>> I
> don't see Meier as setting himself up as anyone that governments would
> have to negotiate with, diplomatically or otherwise. He just tries to
> get the real truth out to those who can accept it, not force it upon
> anyone. So he agrees with his contactors on this, who make sure that
> those who cannot believe that Meier is honest still have a crutch to
> fall back on -- through occasional disinformation and plausible
> deniability.
> If we included MH in these emails, he could amplify.
> Jim
> At 10:46 PM 1/31/06, Eric Julien wrote:
> Dear Alfred,
> It seems that there is a little mistake because you speak to Michael
> when you send me an email meanwhile Paola, Ed, Tom, Jim and Michael
> are in copy. But it doesn't matter at all.
> There is absolutely no judgement from me since my question was
> sincere. I really wonder why, technically speaking, Michael Horn needs
> to join the advisory board "as the US Meier representative". This is a
> very serious question.
> I didn't notice in the first message you sent to us that you presented
> Michael Horn as supporter of the United Nations Decade of Contact. In
> that case, we could discuss about the opportunity to accept equaly
> every member of the Meier community, or other supporters of the United
> Nations Decade of Contact. In that case, we could also discuss about
> the possibility to invite each people, telepathically and directly in
> touch with benevolent ETs, having voted for the world referendum "Do
> you whish that we show up ?" which is the most popular ET message ever
> spread out in the ufology history all over the world (more than 15
> languages, 100 countries, etc). We could speak also about all the
> different initiatives proposed by different people.
> Let's put the Horn's behaviors aside, I am sure that you perfectly
> understand the representativeness problem. So, except if I
> misunderstand what lies ahead, Michael Horn is proposed as "US
> representative of Billy Meier". If I correctly remember the material,
> Billy Meier speaks about himself as "the only one". I don't see this
> detail like you see it when you say : "
> In an other hand, the purpose of Exopolitics Institute is to
> collectively study the cases, not to declare that there is only one
> contactee in the world, and that contactee is the Jesus incarnation.
> Michael Horn, as "US representative of this contactee" follows
> probably an agenda which seems not to match the one of Exopolitics
> Institute.
> Hence my real question about the technical justification of such a
> proposal. Nevertheless, as Michael Salla offers an alternative
> solution - that we have accepted as Directors of the Board - we will
> follow that solution. But the main question raised above will still
> remain for the next year.
> Again, there is absolutely no judgement but, in contrary, respect for
> the special position of Meier among all the contactees all over the
> world. Normally, his so many evidences just speak for him. This is
> what I call "divine power of the only one". I don't know why he needs
> something else. If he is what he claims to be, governments would have
> to negociate diplomatic concerns with him. And maybe it is the case.
> There is probably an answer that I just don't figure out. I would be
> happy to have the technical response from you, or from Michael Horn
> himself, when this topic will be updated next year.
> In peace, Jean.
> "Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd" <> a écrit :
> Dear Michael - Hi! Thank you for a respectful, reasoned reply, which
> was in measured tones, as was the respectful and reasoned nature of
> our request.
> I must say to you as Director of the Board of Directors of the EI that
> I find the following language judgmental and entirely inappropriate
> for a person who holds the office member of the Board of Directors of
> a supposed non-partisan educational Non-Governmental Organization:
> "Nevertheless, I wonder why Horn, as Meier's US representative, needs
> to join an exopolitics institute since Meier is supposed to be well
> above the "case studies" since he is the "only one". As being the one
> we call "Jesus", he certainly doesn't need anyone to be recognized or
> supported. The "divine power" is well enough."
> NOTE: I would like to note for the record that on their own, members
> of the Meier community have contacted the Swiss Ambassador to the
> United Nations as well as the President of the United Nations in
> support of the United Nations Decade of Contact Resolution, with
> lengthy, professional letters of support, courtesy copies of which
> have been mailed to our offices. These members of the Meier community
> are equal to each and every one of us in international law, and they
> have equal right to express their support for the United Nations
> Decade of Contact. They also have the right to be fair language in EI
> proceedings.
> The EI is also supportive of the United Nations Decade of Contact, as
> evidenced by the Kona Declaration webpage:
> I would respectfully request that the EI Board accord all courtesies
> to all supporters of the United Nations Decade of Contact, including
> members of the Meier community. The UN Decade of Contact constitutes a
> "Common Page" to which many different parties can agree, whatever
> their differences on other matters and details.
> Cordially, Alfred
> Alfred Lambremont Webre, JD, MEd
> ______________________________
> Please visit the following web address
> to sign a petition to the United Nations, titled :"UNITED NATIONS
> DECADE OF CONTACT", which expresses your support of the following
> directives:
> By my signature I wish to support:
> DISCLOSURE: Open, transparent, official governmental disclosure and
> declassification of all past and present programs related to
> extraterrestrial presence on Earth.
> DECADE OF CONTACT: Public funding by U.N. Member Nations and by the
> UNITED NATIONS of a 10 year process of formal public education,
> scientific research, educational curricula development, stategic
> planning, community activity, and public outreach about the
> extraterrestrial presence on Earth and the future of Earth in regard
> to the populated universe.
> DISARMAMENT: A permanent ban on all space-based weapons and warfare in
> space through a Space Preservation Treaty Conference.
> DIPLOMACY: UNITED NATION Public Interest Diplomacy seeking to make
> contact with Off-Planet Cultures now visiting Earth.
> On 29-Jan-06, at 9:19 AM, Eric Julien wrote:
> Aloha All,
> Thank you Michael to confirm my position. I thank Tom, Alfred and Jim
> for trying to help Michael Horn. Nevertheless, I wonder why Horn, as
> Meier's US representative, needs to join an exopolitics institute
> since Meier is supposed to be well above the "case studies" since he
> is the "only one". As being the one we call "Jesus", he certainly
> doesn't need anyone to be recognized or supported. The "divine power"
> is well enough. Look at, for exemple, the young man meditating since
> more than six months in India without any food. Without saying any
> word, in a perfect peaceful behavior, he is able to get the world
> attention.
> In peace, Jean.
> Exopolitics <> a écrit :
> Dear Tom, Alfred and Jim, I must admit to being surprised in seeing the
> Michael Horn issue coming up again so quickly. Horn was nominated by
> Alfred
> in December last year, and on Dec 5, I passed on the nomination to the
> Board
> of Directors to consider
> ( No
> support existed for issuing an invitation to Horn for reasons that
> have been
> earlier discussed at length in the forum's history. The recent
> exchanges
> between Michael Horn and Jon Robinson (a material witness to Alex's
> Collier's alleged contact experiences and a former close associate of
> Alex)
> provided an opportunity for a few of us who observed that private
> exchange
> to learn some new information. The idea that Jon Robinson validated
> Michael
> Horn's position is an exagerration of what occurred. Yes, he confirmed
> that
> Horn had met with Alex and that they had been 'associates' back in
> 1986, but
> we had already independently concluded that. On other matters, Horn's
> position was still contested and he displayed the same aggressive
> debunking
> of those who don't meet his self-declared criteria for 'genuine
> contactee'
> status. This debunking goes back a few years and predates either mine
> or
> Paola's interest in the Alex Collier case.
> More to the point, Horn wants to depict the history of the exchanges
> over
> Alex Collier as one where he was falsely accused of lying and where he
> is
> owed an apology. That is a distortion of what has occurred since
> neither I
> nor Paola have accused him of lying as far as meeting and knowing Alex
> Collier under the previous name of Ralph Anagram. There remains
> contested
> versions of their 'friendship' and of an alleged book of Billy Meier's
> Contact Notes that Horn claims Collier gave him in 1986/87 and which
> Collier
> has denied ever owning or giving to Horn. That remains a matter for
> the two
> of them to eventually resolve as Jon Robinson himself acknowledged. It
> is
> clear that both Horn and Jim appear very upset that neither I nor Paola
> accept Michael Horn's word on that particular issue of the Contact
> Notes. I
> don't think think there is sufficient reason for accepting Horn's word
> here
> since both Paola and I have met with Alex Collier and find him to have
> great
> integrity. This makes us more inclined to accept Collier's version of
> events
> while understanding that the long period since the event may have led
> to
> hazy recollections on both parties as to what actually transpired.
> Consequently, this remains a disputed issue and Jon Robinson affirmed
> that
> this dispute goes back some years so little has been resolved here.
> There is however the substantive issue of personally insulting and
> demeaning
> posts by Michael Horn against both Paola and myself for supporting the
> testimony of Alex Collier as credible. This has been a great
> distraction to
> both Paola and myself, and Michael Horn has made no effort to retract
> these
> public insults and attacks. In fact he continues to publicly criticise
> our
> support of Alex Collier's credibility and further compounds the issue
> by
> arguing that we owe him an apology for supporting in his words, a
> 'proven
> liar' and 'fraud'. When offered evidence for Alex Collier's claims in
> the
> form of Jon Robinson's and his wife's personal testimony of a sighting
> of a
> UFO at the precise time during the night when Alex was having a contact
> experience, Horn dismissed this as 'anecdotal' and 'rambling', and not
> providing any support to Collier's claims. I think Horn's debunking and
> aggressive behavior towards those defending the credibility or
> integrity of
> contactees, experiencers, etc., is a cause for concern that his role
> in the
> Institute would be a disruptive one and derail us from projects that
> require
> cooperation. That is why there is little to be gained in bringing up
> the
> Horn case at this time since nothing has substantially changed in his
> posting behavior or attitude despite how he spins his recent
> correspondence
> with Jon Robinson.
> Horn was nominated for the Advisory Board/Honorary member position and
> currently has no support among the Board of Directors. That may change
> in
> the future but I do think that renominating Horn every few months
> achieves
> little other than give energy to a wedge issue that divides members of
> the
> Institute. Consequently, I've discussed this with each member of the
> Board
> of Directors and we've decided to adopt as a rule that an individual
> can
> only be considered for Advisory Board or Honorary membership once a
> year. If
> the nomination is declined by the BOD, then the individal has to wait
> a year
> before being reconsidered. This new rule will be applied to the
> Michael Horn
> case and I believe is the most sensible way of proceeding in this
> matter. We
> can't afford to be distracted every few months to reconsider someone
> who
> will spin information to justify his controversial debunking, and has
> not
> withdrawn his public insults of members of the Institute with his
> comments.
> By the end of this year, December 5, 2006, Jim, Alfred or anyone else
> would
> be free to renominate Horn and he will be reconsidered.
> As for your suggestion for ethical guidelines for posting behavior in
> the
> Institute, I think that is a sensible proposal for dealing with
> members who
> may cross the boundary of ethical posting behavior. However, that
> should be
> separated from the Horn issue, and considered on its own merits as a
> set of
> criteria that the Institute adopts for posting members. I think it
> would be
> helpful if a draft can be created for posting guidelines so we can
> start
> developing a code of posting behavior. The Institute is rapidly
> growing in
> terms of invited Advisors/Honorary members and we need to anticipate
> possible conflicts among members who may hold strong opinions on
> various
> topics.
> In conclusion, the original idea behind the forum was that it would
> pool
> together the collective exopolitical expertise so we can move forward
> on
> collaborative projects and discuss issues in a collegial spirit even
> where
> there are differences of opinion. This has begun happening and I'm
> grateful
> for that development. I don't think it would be fruitful for the
> Institute
> to become a battle ground for defenders of one 'contactee' over
> another, or
> 'witness' over another which would happen if Horn were admitted and
> aggressively promoted his advocacy of the Meier case while harshly
> attacking
> those that dissented from him. It is Horn's aggressive and insulting
> attacks
> on those that differ from him that led to his being banned from the
> prepare4contact forum, rather than his public positions on knowing Alex
> Collier, having received Meier's contact note from Collier, or the
> authenicity of Collier's claims. I certainly encourage diversity in
> opinion
> and think this is a sign of a healthy intellectual community. However,
> I
> will not tolerate bullying or insulting behavior which is why I remain
> opposed to Horn being invited to join the Institute at this time. That
> may
> change but much depends on whether Horn takes responsibility for his
> harsh
> attacks on the integrity and research abilities of others who differ
> to him,
> and publicly apologise for his behavior on those public forums where
> he has
> previously made such attacks. I suggest those who genuinely believe
> Horn has
> something to contribute to exopolitical issues encourage him in that
> direction so when the time comes for the BOD to reconsider a possible
> invitation, a different outcome results.
> Aloha, Michael
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> To: ; ;
> ;
> Sent: Saturday, January 28, 2006 5:18 AM
> Subject: some thoughts re Michael Horn, from Jim, Alfred, Tom
> (Michael, Ed, Paola, Eric: Jim contacted Alfred about this issue,
> Alfred
> invited me to add some ideas, and the three of us came up with this
> letter. It
> seems coincidental that as we were working on these, Ed wrote of his
> discussion
> with Michael about perhaps a need for some restructuring of the
> Advisory
> Board.
> So, maybe this is the time to bring the subject of Michael Horn up
> again.
> Jim
> and Alfred asked me to be the one to forward the below letter to you,
> and
> I
> agreed, in the interest of building an accepting Exopolitics community.
> Tom)
> Dear Michael, Paola, Ed and Jean - We are writing you in your
> capacities
> as Board members of the Exopolitics Institute to resolve an unfortunate
> misunderstanding which should be put behind us.
> Already on the Advisory Board we have people who are sometimes in
> disagreement over issues, so clearly we are not a group that expects
> consensus on issues, nor should we. We are all trying our best to
> respect
> the positions of others and to logically evaluate the research we come
> across. One expressed concern about Michael Horn is that there were
> some
> comments that he might be disruptive on the Advisory Board or other
> status. However, we thought that might not be a good enough reason by
> itself to remove Michael Horn from being considered for the Advisory
> Board
> or some other Honorary status.
> A proposal for inviting Michael Horn to join the Exopolitics Institute
> in
> some capacity as Advisory Board or with Honorary status, could be
> coupled
> with a
> sort
> of "agreement of conduct" that the whole Board of Directors and
> Advisory
> Board could revise until we agreed ourselves to sign it.
> In other words, if we had some clear standards of communication amongst
> the Advisory Board that we had all agreed to, then any new member would
> have to agree to those standards and abide by them, as would the
> current
> members.
> We have read the emails forwarded to Michael Salla from Jon Robinson,
> in
> which he has vindicated Michael Horn from any charge of having lied
> about
> Alex Collier's earlier identity as Ralph, or of not having met several
> times with Ralph. That charge was what led to his harsh language to
> Michael and Paola, since no one likes to be called a liar when he knows
> he's not. Therefore we feel that, as the U.S. representative for the
> truth
> of Billy Meier's experiences, he should be invited, at least
> provisionally, to join the Board of Advisors or some other Honorary
> status
> of the Exopolitical Institute.
> We realize that when any discussions arise concerning the genuineness
> of
> this or that alleged contactee, Michael Horn is likely to point out how
> the level of support may be a couple orders of magnitude below that of
> the
> Meier contactee case, so that great caution may be advised before
> removing
> that contactee's "alleged" label. Should that occur and lead to
> disruptive
> exchanges whose fault is deemed by the Board to lie with Michael Horn,
> he
> could be voted out if a code of email conduct were already in place.
> The basic spirit of what we are saying is that the facts seem to have
> vindicated what Michael Horn was originally alleging. It is time to put
> this unfortunate misunderstanding behind us as an Exopolitical
> community.
> Jim, Alfred and Tom came together spontaneously over the last several
> days
> to forward this request.
> Thank you,
> Jim Deardorff
> Alfred Webre
> Tom Hansen
> Découvez le nouveau Yahoo! Messenger : appelez vers des téléphones en
> France et à partir de 0,012 €/minute ! Téléchargez la version beta.


Back to our PREPARE4CONTACT page.

Back to our gigantic UFOLOGY page

Back to Homepage