Aliens On Earth.com Resources for those who are stranded here UFOs | Paranormal | Area 51 People | Places | Random Top 100 | What's New Catalog | New Books 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 Our Bookstore is OPEN Mothership -> UFO -> Updates -> 1997 -> May -> Here

From: Vince_Johnson_at_TENSOR__HSTN@ccmailsmtp.hstn.expl.pgs.com
Date: 09 May 97 17:46:59 cst
Fwd Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 19:55:32 -0400
Subject: Re: Are contactees ever lied to?


>Date: Wed, 7 May 1997 16:55:14 -0700 (PDT)
>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu>
>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Are contactees ever lied to?

 The debate between Jim Deardorff and myself on the Meier affair
 continues:

>> The difference between Ed Walters and Billy Meier is this: Ed
>>Walters, while his numerous UFO photos rival Meier's, has never
>>established himself as a self-proclaimed Cosmic Emissary of an alien
>>race, as Meier has done.

>The latter is just your assumption.  Upon treating Meier's supportive
>witnesses seriously, plus all his photo evidence that Korff couldn't
>refute, one finds that Meier was just relaying what he was told by his
>contactees.  If it all didn't happen, then you're right.  If it did
>happen, then Meier was indeed selected by these aliens to be their prime
>contactee -- call him a Cosmic Emissary then if you wish.

Only if one believes Meier's story. I don't. I also don't accept
"supporting witnesses" as definitive proof that any of this really
happened. Do you believe that Joseph Smith really was given enscribed
golden plates by the angel Moroni? He had "eyewitnesses" that verified
the existence of the plates (although most of them later hedged, saying
they saw them "spiritually," not literally). In short, supportive
eyewitnesses -- especially in the furtherance of a particular ideology --
doesn't necessarily prove anything.

Of course, I could be wrong, and Meier's story could be true just as he's
told it. But in my experience, such grandiose tales are the result of
either neuroses or scams. You wouldn't refute this observation, would
you?


>>In my opinion, the Gulf Breeze sightings must remain classified as
>>"unknown" -- which tends to indicate that anomalous events are
>>actually occuring. Contrast that with Meier's extensive "contact notes"
>>with extraterrestrials he claims to know by name, place of origin, etc.

>There's not that much contrast there:  We know what Meier was told their
>names were, we don't know if those were their real names; they could
>use other names within their own society.  They told him they were from
>the Pleiades, but one doesn't know if this was true; later they told him
>they were from some 80 light-years beyond the Pleiades, and we also
>don't know if that was true.  Etc.

No Jim, we don't know that these conversations or any aspect of the Meier
saga really happened.

If you suspect that everything Meier's aliens say is a lie, what does
that say about their motives regarding the 'Prime Directive,' etc.?
Wouldn't that put Meier's Pleiadians more into the metaphysical realm of
"elementals" (disembodied tricksters) as opposed to material/technical ET
lifeforms? In either event (ET or elemental), such lying entities should
be denounced -- not idolized.

> These types of contactee accounts are wholly inconsistent with the
> consistently inexplicable nature of the UFO phenomenon throughout
> history, worldwide.

>Your sentence would make more sense if you had used the word
>"consistent."  Surely it's just as inexplicable in the Meier case how
>his aliens could render their craft invisible, or cause it to jump away
>from one place to another faster than the eye can follow, as in CE1
>reports.

Nope, I don't think so. That kind of stuff is just technological. We'll
probably be able to do that kind of stuff in 100 years or so -- maybe
less. It's the motivation and methodology that you ascribe to them that I
find utterly inexplicable.


>>> This "Prime Directive" seems to apply to society as a whole, but not
>>>to the selected individuals (UFO witnesses and abductees..) upon whom
>>>the task has been imposed to try to persuade their fellow man that the
>>>alien presence is real.

>> I think you'll agree that if they wanted to, ET ufonauts could find
>>a much more efficient means to reveal their presence.

>I apologize to others for your forcing me to repeat so much here.  But we
>agreed a short time back that they *don't* want to reveal their presence to
>all of society, at least not yet, since they obviously haven't done
>that.  And the Prime Directive idea goes along with this.  But that
>doesn't mean that they can't reveal themselves to one or more isolated
>individuals; then when those individuals report what transpired with
>them, others can believe it or not, depending upon how open or closed
>their belief system is.

>> Why would they use a
>> method that was so ambiguous -- and frankly, unbelievable?

>Again I repeat, if it were believable to scientists as a whole, and then
>to society, their coverup would be blown.

 I see. Meier's aliens have a plan to reveal their existence by
 presenting irrational, inconsistent and frankly, unbelievable
 evidence for their presence through contact with a single human,
 Billy Meier. Thus, the "spiritually attuned" will become aware of
 their presence, while the other 99.9999% of the Earth's population
 will remain blissfully unaware of this momentous revelation --
 victims of the aliens own ongoing efforts to obscure their own
 presence.

 Don't you see the huge inconsistency here? They reveal themselves --
 but continue to obscure their existence. Tell me how this makes any
 sense at all.


>> These sorts of
>> contact accounts have been put forth since 1947 -- without any
>>result > other than to call the sanity and/or motives of the contact
>>claimants into question.

(snip)

>In my case it also caused me to become a New Testament Gospel scholar and
>understand the origins of Christianity and at just which points orthodoxy
>and "mainstream" scholars alike went astray.  This from careful study of
>the Talmud of Jmmanuel and comparing it with both the internal (biblical)
>and external evidence.

Didn't Meier claim to have discovered the "Talmud of Jmmanuel"? Did anyone
else ever see it, or is it like Joseph Smith's golden plates -- a creation
of his imagination with no basis in physical, material reality?

 Like J. Smith, Meier seems intent on founding his own religion.


>> As I recently posted to Michael Hesemann:

>> You could make this same argument for any and all contactee accounts --
>> no matter how ludicrous. I could just as easily make the claim that I
>> met Santa Claus, and that he told me that he really lives on Venus, and
>> furthermore, I could produce impressive photos of the jolly old elf
>> and several "witnesses" who would verify my account.

>Now you've suddenly forgotten all about Meier's photo evidence and
>supportive witnesses.  E.g. there's an interesting video tape that shows
>a Japanese ufologist interviewing Kalliope Meier, with Herbert Runkel as
>translator, and interviewing two of her children who also had the daytime
>sighting of Semjase's beamship.  One of the children had even drawn a
>picture of it soon afterwards, which he showed.  Though Kalliope by now
>may be a hostile witness, she couldn't deny what she and her three
>children saw with their own eyes, and didn't deny it on the video tape.
>So forget your Santa Claus argument.

I could create convincing photos of Santa Clause. I could gather a group
to swear they had seen Santa (I suspect this could be accomplished for as
little as $25 per "eyewitness"). Based on the incredible incredulity
running rampant, I daresay I could even attract a following.

If I have photos and eyewitnesses my Santa claim would have just as much
supportive evidence as Billy Meier. The Santa Claus argument is a valid
one, Jim. Why can't you admit this?

And from what I'm reading, Kalliope is denying the entire scam now. Is she
lying now or was she lying then? Oddly, one wouldn't expect such
bitterness from a woman so blessed to have been married to The Most
Special Human On Earth. She now seems singularly unimpressed with her
husband, Semjase, and the Pleiadians in general.

Nothing like a nasty divorce to air the dirty laundry...

 Regards,

 Vince