Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here Our Bookstore is OPEN Over 5000 new & used titles, competitively priced! Topics: UFOs - Paranormal - Area 51 - Ghosts - Forteana - Conspiracy - History - Biography - Psychology - Religion - Crime - Health - Geography - Maps - Science - Money - Language - Recreation - Technology - Fiction - Other - New Search... for keyword(s)   in Page Titles in Book Title/Author in Contents of Pages ---other searches--- Metacrawler Yahoo FAST Search Google Altavista Dogpile Inference Find Northern Light IWon.com MSN Search Las Vegas Sun Location: Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> Apr -> Review - 'Spaceships of the Pleiades...'

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 1997 12:50:11 -0700 (PDT)
Fwd Date: Fri, 25 Apr 1997 10:15:05 -0400
Subject: Review - 'Spaceships of the Pleiades...'

> Date: Wed, 23 Apr 1997 21:32:42 -0400
> To: updates@globalserve.net
> From: Don Allen <dona@totcon.com>
> Subject: Review - Spaceships of the Pleiades...

> Apologies if this has been posted here before, but I came across
> it while doing lookups in search engines and thought it might
> be of interest to others.
> Don

Hello Don, and the List (to which I'm a newcomer):

I saw this account by Dennis Stacy which you posted, and it seems to call
for some reply from myself.  It's pretty long, though, so I'll only quote
pieces:

  Dennis speaking:

> At a conference several years ago I was having breakfast with a scientist
> from a major university. It wasn't a UFO conterence per se, but over granola
> in his case and ham and eggs in mine, the talk soon turned to that subject.
> To my surprise, he reached into his briefcase and pulled out a small
> portfolio of UFO photographs -- the clearest I had ever seen. The
> photographs were taken by one Eduard "Billy" Meier; the scientist had
> purchased them on a personal visit to Meier's headquarters (now known as the
> Semjase Silver Star Center) near the small village of Wetzikon, Switzerland.

I believe I am that person Dennis is referring to, and it occurred at a
SSE meeting in Austin, Texas, in 1987.  I don't know why the content of
breakfast was important enough for him to mention, unless it was to set up
the impression that readers should identify with him as part of a majority
and associate me with a minority.  This is a not-infrequent editorial
tactic.  But I still do enjoy granola for breakfast.

It is surprising that as late as 1987 Dennis still had not seen any decent
copies of Meier's photos, which for many years Meier and his support group
at Schmidruti made available at cost to interested persons.  But the major
U.S. UFO groups did not bother to look into the case personally when it
became known in the late 1970s, because they automatically assumed, and
still do, that all contactees are either hoaxers or disillusioned
individuals.  It was not the mid 1980s, in fact, that they were forced to
start considering the reality of abductees' experiences, after so many of
them came to light.  So it was left to independent ufologists to research
the Meier case in detail over many years, which Wendelle Stevens, the
Elders, and Gary Kinder did, 1977-1985.  After they could find no way the
case could have been any hoax, this left bad blood between the
independent researchers and the UFO groups who had not investigated the
case, since the former knew better than to loan their 2nd-generation
Meier film material to the latter.  For such reasons, the debunkings of
Meier were underway already by 1980, discouraging the non-independent
types from wishing to look at high quality reproductions of Meier
beamship photos and film for themselves.  Why look into a matter
seriously in the first place when, if you were later to honestly report on
it, you yourself would receive only ridicule?  The ridicule factor
against the Meier case was even present at this 1987 SSE (Society for
Scientific Exploration) meeting.

> My gut reaction -- in which I was hardly alone at the time -- was that the
> pictures were simply too good to be true. In general, UFO photographs are a
> haphazard business at best, one reason why they remain so controversial.
> But part of the early Meier mystique was not only the quality of pictures
> involved, but their sheer quantity.

So here is where Dennis Stacy, and even many scientific types, made a
fatal assumption: that one particular UFO case could not stand out from
all others in quality & quantity of supportive evidence and yet be genuine.
Why make any such assumption when dealing with a phenomenon under the
control of alien beings obviously greatly advanced over us in technology,
psychic abilities, and *intelligence*?

> ... Many of the
> pictures were so good that they appeared posed, which, indeed, is just what
> Meier and his followers would eventually claim, particularly for an
> impressive series of photographs taken at nearby Fuchsbuel on July 9, 1975.

Notice the "would eventually claim."  Meier never denied from the
beginning, in 1975, that they had posed their craft for him to photograph,
and even described how he had been told in advance or through telepathic
direction on where to go for the photographic opportunities and contacts.
This kind of innuendo on Dennis' part does not serve him well.  This
knowledge dates back to Meier's own Contact Reports, typed individually by
him only hours or days after the events, and made available first to his
support group, and later, through Stevens' efforts, to a wider audience in
his four volumes, _Message from the Pleiades_.

> Reportedly, at Meier's request for the definitive UFO photograph, Semjase
> flew her Pleiadian "beamship" around a large tree overlooking Lake
> Pfaffikon. When researchers later noted that the tree had mysteriously
> disappeared from view, it was patiently explained that it had been sent back
> in time because of radioactive contamination!
> My scientist friend wasn't the only one who swallowed this story without so
> much as a single antacid -- or attempt at corroboration.

Dennis was wrong here.  Already by then I had checked with two professors
in a forestry department at Oregon State University, shown them some of
the pictures from this series of photos, and asked if they could identify
what kind of tree it was that the strange object had posed around and had
even nestled into its branches.  (I asked them to try to ignore the object
and to concentrate on the tree.) They had no problem of identifying it
immediately as a *mature* abies alba (European Silver Fir).  One of them
had lived half his life in Western Germany and well knew just how the tree
typically looked and how common it was over there.  It was no baby tree,
and no model tree; they didn't make model trees to look like irregular
trees of a particular species, especially in 1975.  Yet, "ufologists" like
Korff are forced to assume it had to be a model tree with a model UFO
somehow attached to it, because there is no way that superposition of
images or negatives could have worked in that series of photos.  (A claim
that it was the same model tree as a tree seen in a Meier movie film taken
four months earlier is also false, as seen upon close comparison of the
two tree images.)

As to the "radioactive contamination," as far as I know the witnesses
reported to Stevens only that when the tree was first witnessed after the
event, its upper part was noticed to glow in the dark.  I know of no
Geiger-counter readings having been taken.

Anyone who wishes may still bring some good photos from this series,
including the one showing the tree's trunk, to experts in forestry and ask
them what kind of tree it was.  (But it would be best to avoid taking it
to any expert whose belief system would be shattered to know that UFOs are
real, because his conclusions would have to come out such as to support
his previous beliefs -- the usual catch-22.)

Don Allen mentioned the supportive witnesses to some of Meier's
experiences, and in this instance two of Meier's friends had gone to the
site later to see just where Meier had taken the photos from, and they
noticed the tree was turning brown and dying.  So they are witnesses to
the tree having existed.  They are mentioned in Stevens' 1982 book (M.
Rufer and J. Bertschinger); unfortunately, his two 500-page-plus books on
the case have long been out of print.  When they went back to the site
still later to show others, the tree had vanished.  Should we believe
non-witnesses to an event, like Korff or Stacy, rather than the witnesses?

Should we still express surprise these days when witnesses report that
parts of a tree were damaged by a UFO having been too close?  I guess
Dennis found it improbable that aliens who can cause their own spacecraft
to vanish or reappear, and who are noted for occasionally altering
evidence after the fact and sending out "men in black" to curtail certain
witnesses' from reporting further, would or could cause a tree of such
strong evidential importance to vanish without trace.

When Meier asked Semjase what had happened, he was told that the
Pleiadeans had "changed the tree's time."  What a contactee or abductee is
told by his aliens should be considered more suspect of being
disinformation than what the human witness himself reports, since so many
contactees/abductees have been told so many things that conflict with each
other, along with being told truths also.  Yet, science has lately begun
to allow for the possibility that time travel is not theoretically
impossible, and some ufologists therefore think that aliens are future
earthmen traveling back in time.  So we cannot rule out the possibility
that what Semjase told Meier here was truth associated with alien
technology thousands of years ahead of ours.  However, she also told him
that they had had to wipe out a few selected memories of that tree from
the property owner's mind (this is in a Meier Contact Report of 1975 or
1976).

> ... They [items Meier reported on] culminated, if that's the word, in
> Meier's publication of the Talmud Immanuel,
> which, according to Kal Korff, "professes to be the last true
> testament of Jesus Christ written after his crucifixion." In it, Meier
> claims that Jesus was not the Son of God, but a Pleiadian, of all people.
> Over the years, I corresponded with the scientist and again bumped into him
> on occasion. Each time I expected him to recant, or at least pull back
> slightly from his public support of the Meier "mystery" in the interest of
> science, but his belief only grew stronger. The last time I saw him he was
> working on an English translation of the Talmud Immanuel.

I've studied the Talmud of Jmmanuel for over 10 years now, and find
several hundred cumulative reasons why it can be no fake, and that the
*first* Gospel written was based upon it; it moreover allows a scholarly
type to deduce just where New Testament scholars have gone wrong in their
reassessments of which Gospel came first, etc.

Regarding who Jesus' father was, I think that the immaculate conception &
virgin birth stories, combined with present knowledge of abducting aliens'
preoccupation with hybridization with humans, causes even some Christians
who have looked into ufology to ponder if an alien father might not have
been involved.  Moreover, if one reads the birth story in Luke, one finds
that it comes within a hair of naming Gabriel as the father.  Evidently
Gabriel was a human-appearing "angel," just as the Pleiadeans are
described as looking human or Nordic, so that hybridization in this case
is not as much of a stretch as it is between humans and the greys.  So
it's well to keep an open mind on these matters.  Yet, it's understandable
that many Christians and ufologists with Christian backgrounds, as well as
atheists, would be turned off by the Meier case after learning about the
Talmud of Jmmanuel, and Meier's role in having been in on its discovery
in 1963 and in seeing that it got published.

It's true, however, that I helped Wild Flower Press in their English
translation of the Talmud of Jmmanuel (TJ); that was in an early stage in
which I was a consultant, and a German-speaking collegian hired by the
publisher was the main translator.  This was after most of my own research
on the TJ indicated its genuineness and its solutions to many
uncertainties that have plagued NT scholars over the decades and
centuries, as reported in my book, _Celestial Teachings_, also published
by Wild Flower Press.

Jim Deardorff