UFO UpDates Mailing List
From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@ucs.orst.edu> Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 21:41:39 -0700 (PDT) Fwd Date: Tue, 13 May 1997 20:44:19 -0400 Subject: Re: Re: Are contactees ever lied to? > From: Vince_Johnson_at_TENSOR__HSTN@ccmailsmtp.hstn.expl.pgs.com > Date: 09 May 97 17:46:59 cst > To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net> > Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: 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 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 [contactors]. 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. Well, consider a case like "Adrain" of Miami who Randy Winters championed, at least for awhile -- the claimed Pleiadean contactee supposedly dating back to 1974, a year before Meier's main contacts began. Randy is still maintaining Adrain's anonymity, so no one can interview him thoroughly and check him out for years and years like some investigators did Meier. And Adrain's supposed supportive witnesses are all anonymous, so that no one can check any of them out, even though what they supposedly saw was as spectacular as what Meier's supportive witnesses saw. But not a one of Adrain's supportive witnesses felt that what they saw was so important that the world should know about it even though it would likely cost them their jobs; but some two dozen of Meier's supportive witnesses gave Wendelle Stevens, the Elders et al. and Gary Kinder their names and/or written statements of what they had witnessed. So in a case like "Adrain," your position makes a lot of sense; I regard him as a hoax perpetrated by I don't know who. In the case of Meier, the witnesses stick to their guns to this day; they know what they saw. I've even interviewed three of them; they're sincere. One of the supportive witnesses, Hans Schutzbach, along with four other named persons, witnessed a spectacular UFO light show one particular night that Meier had told them Semjase had agreed to put on for them that night. He is also one of a half dozen persons, besides Meier, to have had a beamship sighting in the daytime. Schutzbach is one who later had a falling out with Meier because he didn't care for the content of the messages Meier had received and was promulgating to his group. But Schutzbach nevertheless insists Meier had his experiences that were real UFO experiences; he could hardly deny it later after having signed written statements in 1976 attesting to what they had seen, which Stevens reported in his 1982 book. Do you have any reason why you would believe an alleged UFO witness like Korff but disbelieve Schutzbach, Jacobus Bertschinger, Margret Flammer, Margarite Rufer and Amata Stetter? > 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. I tend to believe the Joseph Smith case was just that -- a UFO contact. > 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? I note your experience, but it would seem that you haven't been exposed to many persons who tell it like it is. You seem to be saying that surely anyone who relates an experience of having been taken from their bed by aliens, for example, and whisked through the wall of their apartment up into a hovering UFO, is telling a grandiose tale. And if there were a few witnesses to the abduction who dared to come forth on it, it seems you would claim that their witnessing does not amount to anything. > If you suspect that everything Meier's aliens say is a lie, what does > that say about their motives regarding the 'Prime Directive,' etc.? We've been over this before, Vince. Recall, disinformation has no value to its propagator unless substantial amounts of truth are fed in also. In Meier's case, I suspect that the disinformation was in the minority and truth in the majority, back in 1975-76. So here you were setting up an extreme "everything." > > 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. Well, OK, so it's totally inexplicable to you that aliens would show ethical regard towards skeptics who are unable to cope with the UFO reality, while at the same time providing positive definite evidence that others need not ignore and that proves to them that the alien presence is real enough. The aliens must do one, or they must do the other, but they're not smart enough to do both, you say. I can't do any more than I already have to clue you in. Someone else can take over, if they wish! > And from what I'm reading, Kalliope is denying the entire scam now. Is she > lying now or was she lying then? Like I said, she wasn't lying then, there were other witnesses; her own children saw the beamship; Hans Schutzbach saw it, so did Hans Benz and Eva Bieri. If you have any information that says she now denies she saw the beamship, please let us know about it, if you will. I have a video tape that records her witnessing to it, including the portholes around the cupola, plus what two of her children saw. > Oddly, one wouldn't expect such > bitterness from a woman so blessed to have been married to The Most > Special Human On Earth. Really, Vince. Next you'll be saying that Meier must cause some persons to wish to assassinate him or crucify him on a cross, as occurred to a Special Human a while back. Jim
UFO UpDates - Toronto -
updates@globalserve.net
Operated by Errol Bruce-Knapp - ++ 416-696-0304
A Hand-Operated E-Mail Subscription Service for the Study of UFO Related
Phenomena.
To subscribe please send your first and last name to
updates@globalserve.net
Message submissions should be sent to the same address.
|
Link it to the appropriate Ufologist or UFO Topic page. |
Archived as a public service by Area 51 Research Center which is not
responsible for content.
Financial support for this web server is provided by the
Research Center Catalog.
Software by Glenn Campbell.
Technical contact:
webmaster@ufomind.com