Hi,

First, let me say that I'm not entirely sure if this would be the best forum on which to post this information but I'll give it a try.

Let me also say that I am NOT posting my information to promote the sale of, or belief in, anything. I simply have sufficient evidence of the credibility and authenticity of the source of the information to render obvious skeptical attacks quite moot.

I'll also add that my exchanges with Phil in the past have been less than satisfying but I hope that any prejudices on his end won't prevent all of you from forming your own opinions, pro or con.

Here then are links to two articles that have information about the Tunguska event that deal with the ET hypothesis:

http://www.theyfly.com/PDF/The_Tungu...illy_Meier.pdf

http://www.theyfly.com/Tunguska1.htm

...and here are a few other links to articles that contain scientific information that was also published well in advnace of "official" discovery:

http://www.theyfly.com/newsflash94/U..._the_Towel.htm

http://www.theyfly.com/Breaking_News.html

http://www.theyfly.com/newsflash95/U...unami_Ver2.pdf

http://www.theyfly.com/lost/meier.prophecies.1958.htm

Dare I say that I look forward to your responses?

MH

Welcome to the board.

If you intend to present and defend a conspiracy hypothesis here, you should state or summarize it in your post, and use links only to support these statements. When you just give us links to pages written by others, and make no claims yourself, it's not very fair to us, as we don't know what specific claims or arguments you mean to present or defend.

I will comment on one page for starters; the one about how "UFO Skeptics" are supposedly "throwing in the towel" because someone said that there was water on Mars many years ago.

Looking past the hyperbole and smug self-congratulatory tone of the article, the only thing I see there is that someone stated - without a shred of supporting evidence - that his alien pals told him that there was water on Mars. He conveniently left all the hard work and skull sweat of actually proving that there really was water on Mars to NASA.

Can you tell me why this is supposed to be impressive, or why any UFO skeptics should care about this? If this fellow thought (for whatever reason) that there was life on Mars, why is it so shocking that he guessed that there was liquid water there? Why should such a guess convince anyone else without supporting evidence?

Jonathan Swift was at least able to guess that Mars has two moons, and he wasn't even trying very hard.

__________________
"People do not want immortality... They simply do not want to die... They want to feel the ground beneath their feet, see the clouds overhead, love other people, be with them, and think. Nothing more. Everything that has been said beyond that is a lie." - Ijon Tichy

Like, perhaps, Billy Meier? It appears every link you provided (all from one website, some of which appears to have been written by you - I saw an "MH" there) was about Billy Meier claims.


All I see there are Billy Meier claims. If you have a conspiracy theory to present, with evidence, go ahead.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

From the website you linked to:

http://www.theyfly.com/prophecies/prophecies.htm

Are you Michael Horn? If so, do you have any other purpose here than to promote Billy Meier?

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

__________________
Brett
Peters Creek, Alaska
─────────────────────────────────────────────
My moderation comments will appear in this color.
To report a post (even this one) to the moderation team, click the reporting icon in the upper-right corner of the post:
─────────────────────────────────────────────
◄ Rules For Posting To This Board ► ◄ Forum FAQs ► ◄ Conspiracy Theory Advice ► ◄ Alternate Theory Advice ►

Before Shoemaker-Levy, I leaned a bit towards the artificially produced blast explaination. Basiccaly because no one knew what an impact event was really like.

No that we know, Tunguska matches a natural impact event perfectly.

__________________
There is no problem that cannot be solved by a suitable application of high explosives - US Army Demolitions School

I just saw Hayley's comet, she waved, Said "why you always running in place? Even the man in the moon disappeared, Somewhere in the stratosphere" - Shinedown

http://worldsofothersuns.home.comcast.net/

Funny you should say that. A couple days ago I read Professor French's article about Patrica Putt's failure to pass the preliminary test for the James Randi Education Foundation's Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge in the Guardian. In the comments is a hard to understand rant (well several from the same guy) that claims his wife wrote an entire book on Swift's precognition abilities (or some such) to predict the two moons and their 'precise' orbits and periods. (Swift was off the mark by quite a bit, in actual fact, but don't underestimate the power of woo).

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...2-324fe422cd83

I found this rather insulting to Swift's intelligence. He knew that no moons were yet spotted orbiting mars. Any moons therefore would have to be small and close. Once distance was known, simple orbital mechanics will allow you to predict how long something takes to revolve around Mars. The thought of the day was since Earth had one moon, and Jupiter had four, logically, Mars would have two. (This seems to go back to Kepler at least). Swift chose 3 and 5 as orbital radii (it's closer to 1.4 and 3.5) it has been suggested mostly as a joke.

__________________
"Ignorance has caused more calamity than malignity" H.G. Wells

"Getting lost is part of exploring." Uniqua in "Backyardigans-Heart of the Jungle"

"Trying to wrap my head around creationist astronomy is like trying to ride a unicycle around a Moebius strip: it’s off-balance, physically impossible, full of one-sided arguments, and in the end you don’t go anywhere." Phil Plait

Sorry but Billy Meier quotes are not considered as evidence on this board. Do you have any concrete evidence?

__________________
______________________________________________
“He who asks a question is a fool for five minutes; he who does not ask a question remains a fool forever”
Chinese proverb
"All you need in this life is ignorance and confidence - and then success is sure." - Mark Twain.

A quote from the article:

"It just so happens that the Swiss UFO contactee had also been told, and had written, about the Tunguska event. And, as is typical of the depth and extent of the prophetically accurate information in the case, Meier actually first received the information on February 3, 1953"

I say, this kills the whole idea from the getgo. Why? Because Billy Meier is a well known "UFO contactee" who is not taken seriously by the scientific community. So his evidence about Tunguska is worthless from a main stream science point of view.
What I know of Tunguska is that photos of kilometers of trees blown over plus reports of sonic booms hundreds of km away, point to a large explosion in the atmosphere. This must have been an asteroid or comet, because nuclear bombs hadn't been invented in 1908.

First off: Welcome to the Forum.

Well if what Van Rijn says is true and you are M. Horn and you are “the authorised American media representative for the Billy Meier Contacts” then you are promoting BM’s books in a round about way so would profit from any interest generated by the sites you linked. This alone severely damages your credibility.

If “obvious skeptical attacks are quite moot” why bother posting it. Who or what source is the information from?

As most people here have respect for Phil and his opinions, though some may not agree with all of them, your veiled attack on him does not help your case.

BTW what is the case you are promoting beside the websites? Do you have a theory to put forward?

__________________
"If they put me on a postage stamp tell them to use the young Bender"
--Bender

Interesting that the BA is blogging about this today

__________________
At night the stars put on a show for free (Carole King)

One Earth, One Sky - IYA 2009
All moderation in purple

Thanks for all of your responses. I had just posted a couple of links on a page devoted to the Tunguska event, jumping the gun since it took me a while to realize that my original post had indeed appeared here.

Okay, if we are really interested in determining if there is merit to the Meier case and the claims contained therein, I expect that there are things that we would allow and things that we would disallow.

I consider that the only two possibilities are that the Meier case is either the biggest, most impenetrable hoax, or the most important story in human history. I'm sure that most of you would automatically side with the former possibility, as appears to already be the case.

Since my own experience, and 30 years of research, cause me to conclude that it's quite authentic, naturally the burden of proof (a subject in itself) would be mine.

I will state though that because I have chosen to, voluntarily (for free, without pay, gratis, etc.) represent the material in the case shouldn't in itself be viewed as a negative. Do you discard the opinions of any scientists, researchers, etc. because they are affiliated with and/or have received funding from institutions, etc. - something that doesn't even apply to me?

So I'd like to continue the conversation and do so by responding to what other board members would consider to be the first priority.

I will say that:

There are well respected experts and scientists who support and/or have authenticated the evidence in the case

All skeptical challenges have indeed been defeated

Documented proof is available for many of Meier's specific claims

So I would very much like to proceed and make my best case. Please let me know where you'd like me to begin.

Thanks!

Well, which do you think it is, Michael?

Of course, I don't believe the hoax is impenetrable in the least. It was downright silly, in my opinion. But this has nothing to do with Tunguska...

It was clearly a meteoroid, and was even recognized as such by some of the witnesses who didn't wonder about what it could be, but rather what it most likely was.

It has all the features of a meteoroid air-burst. I am not sure about what qualities that were present that suggested otherwise.

__________________
"...at whose center sprawls the blind idiot god Azathoth, Lord of All Things, encircled by his flopping horde of mindless and amorphous dancers..." - "The Haunter of the Dark," HPL

There is the first question.

Who are the scientists? Where is this authentication?

That is a mighty bold claim.

Can we see these documents?

And just remember, you are to answer direct questions.

Hi Jason,

Thanks for responding. In my opinion, the Meier case is absolutely no hoax. Let me point out that you mention here a belief of yours, i.e. that it's a hoax and not impenetrable. You don't state any evidence for your belief.

While I entered the discussion regarding the Tunguska event, it was pointed out to me that this is a place to propose, support and answer questions about a theory, in this case mine would be that the Meier case is authentic, i.e. an actual example of extraterrestrial contact.

This certainly necessitates my presenting the best evidence I have, devoid of any beliefs. Likewise, if someone is proposing that the case is indeed a hoax, the best arguments, devoid of beliefs, are required. In any event there needs to be evidence that is examined.

My experience is that when it comes to evidence for non-terrestrial UFOs, the skeptics regard any (even abundant) evidence as effectively the same as no evidence. But I think that since we are dealing with a rather unusual subject we should simply use fair, reasonable and objective criteria for examining the evidence.

If someone claims that they have seen and photographed, even been aboard, such objects, just what criteria should we use to try to assess their claims?

Since I am not a credentialed scientist I will not pretend to be one. However, that doesn't mean that I'm unwilling or unable to respond to scientifically based challenges for "proof". And since there are a number of types of proof, I am prepared to present and argue for them, as it pertains to the evidence in the Meier case.

Nick,

Yes I am, sorry for not addressing that first.

Some of the documented comments are available here:

http://theyfly.com/PDF/Scientific%20Experts.PDF

Information on Vogel:

http://theyfly.com/PDF/Documentation...20IBM%20on.pdf

Regarding the documents, yes, in most or many cases they are available to see. They exist in books, websites, etc.

Now a question from me. When did you learn that there were two planets discovered beyond Pluto?

P.S. Nick, I forgot to address your statement regarding my own claim that all skeptical challenges have been defeated. I'd be glad to elaborate on that but I'd first suggest that you review the articles under The Latest Evidence at my site.

I'm glad to expound on the information contained therein.

I noticed that my last response posted quickly but my two previous ones didn't, at least not yet. If they got lost let me know and I'll respond again.

Thanks.

If you have a space or astronomy related conspiracy theory that you want to present, this is the forum. If you have a space or astronomy related ATM idea you want to present then you want the ATM forum.

No, I would go with the "Meier case" as a very minor and obvious hoax. It's hard for me to understand why anyone would take him seriously, but then there are plenty of other ridiculous things that some people take seriously.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Did they have links? Posts containing links by new users are held in a moderator queue. It's an anti-spam measure.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Van Rijn,

Do you have any evidence to support your...belief?

Thanks, they do have links as I was asked for some information for which provided the links. Please then bear with me when requesting documentation, etc. as I will be referring to links to it whenever appropriate.

Why don't you present an ATM or CT claim, with what you consider evidence, and then we can discuss it.

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser

Seems to me you've just gone in circles this whole thread, I don't have any idea what it is you are claiming.

Okay, I claim that: The Billy Meier UFO contacts in Switzerland are indeed authentic, documented and substantiated by several types of acceptable evidence. I further claim that the facts about the case have been distorted, even suppressed by powerful forces.

That should be a start.

Then the direct questions posed to you still stand, and you need to start answering them.

Nick,

I did submit answers but there were links with them and I was informed above that this will take longer to post.

In the meantime, if you'd ask me one that's most important to you, I'll do my best to answer without posting links.

How's that?

P.S. Yes, I'm Michael Horn.

I'll be patient and wait for the mods to allow your posts.

Okay...me too.