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 -> 1998 -> Aug -> Re: Korff & Pleiadian Physics

UFO UpDates Mailing List

From: Jeroen Jansen <jj4747@dds.nl>
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 18:47:33 +0200
Fwd Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998 14:38:02 -0400
Subject: Re: Korff & Pleiadian Physics

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1998
To: UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
From: Jeroen Jansen <jj4747@dds.nl>
Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Korff & Pleiadian Physics

>Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1998 01:40:55 +0200
>From: Andy Denne - A.U.R.A. <aura@telekabel2.nl>
>To: UpDates - Toronto <updates@globalserve.net>
>Subject: Re: UFO UpDate: Re: Korff & Pleiadian Physics

>>The question then is what's the basis of your conviction?

>What are your points for your convictions then? A Meier-groupie
>told me so? That sounds REAL scientific Jeroen..

You accuse me of believing in all sorts of claims by Meier and
FIGU. Apparently you assume that I'm convinced of the reality of
the Meier case. As I've stated in a previous posting to the list
(some time back) that's not true. On the other I also don't take
Korff's claims automatically for granted and like to hear both
sides of the story. I might add here that I'm also not convinced
of the scenario that alien piloted vehicles are visiting Earth.
I probably will only be convinced of that if I see it myself.
(Hier is de Hollandse nuchterheid :-)

My reasoning regarding the Meier case:

The indirect UFO evidence seems to indicate that for 50 years
now, we on Earth have been visited by what appears to be
intelligent guided craft which were not built on Earth.
However, the indirect data also indicates that if some UFOs are
visitors from other stars then the intelligence behind them
doesn't want open contact, otherwise they would have done that
in the past 50 years or earlier and provided us with direct
evidence.

Logic leads me to the conclusion that it's not very probable
that the whole cumulation of indirect evidence in the Meier case
is the result of hoax. With the cumulation of indirect evidence
I mean his + 330 photos, the video and film footage, the sound
recordings, the metals samples, the landing tracks, the
literature he produced like for example thee Talmud Jmmanuel
document, and most important the at least 33 persons in the
Meier case who claim to have seen UFOs and other phenomena
associated with his contacts. Some of these people have also
taken UFO photos and one reportedly took 8 mm film footage.

The indirect hoax evidence presented so far by Korff etc.
doesn't even come close to providing good detailed explanations
for the above mentioned aspects. There really is no valid reason
for eliminating a priori a scenario in which for example the
intelligence behind the UFOs is using Meier to promote certain
concepts and philosophies here on Earth. Examples of the latter
are those warnings against overpulation, religious fanatism and
global warming. And in such a scenario they have provided Meier
with controversial indirect evidence which will attract the
attention of many around the planet, but at the same time won't
prove the ETH, as is the case with all the UFO evidence.

>>>Our dear collegue Bruce Maccabee did great research on a
>>>Meier-film in, 94 or '95 I suppose it was and _proved_ it to be
>>>a model attached to some strings. Why should Meier get the
>>>benefit of the doubt given to him by Jim Deardorff or Jeroen
>>>Janssen?

>>What he did was making a case for the hoax hypothesis.
>>Presenting evidence, no scientific proof.

>In any court someone with enough bodies of evidence _against_
>that person would be convicted. Simply because after adding all
>the evidence up it turns in to indirect _proof_. Maccabee's
>research was merely a part of the puzzle.

But it's in the philosophy of science not to convict anybody
before acquiring direct evidence. We're not in court here.

>>>Remember the Asket and Nera-fiasco and the absolutely lame
>>>excuse Meier came up with?

>>Again it's evidence for a hoax, but doesn't prove hoaxing by
>>Meier, other possibilities remain open, like alien
>>disinformation hypothesis, should also always be kept in mind.

>Aliens, I thought the MiB did it !?!?

>Why would the aliens pose for a picture (reflecting the
>tv-screen, LMAO) and afterwards replace them by fakes? What's
>the use of taking the picture then??? Besides that Meier claimed
>it was the MiB who did it.

Of course I don't deny the possibility they may have been
hoaxed, but again, for the reasons already pointed out in this
posting, one shouldn't eliminate a priori other possibilities.

>>>Remember the tree that mysteriously vanished? Without ANY trace?

>>Yes, it stands in my garden now. :-) There certainly is indirect
>>evidence that a tree once stood there Stevens on p. 49 of his
>>book _UFO contact from the Pleiades: a _Preliminary Ivestigation
>>Report_ states that an acquaintance of Meier upon seeing the
>>developed pictures of the 9 July, Fuchsb=FCel am Hofhalden
>>sequence, located  the exact spots from which the pictures were
>>taken. "He found that the grass here was 20 to 30 centimeters
>>higher than the other grass around."

>Since when does higher grass indicate there was a tree ones? I
>would be curious to know!

The idea here is that, the grass close to the tree stem was
missed,while cutting the meadow grass, and then after the tree
had disappeared, there was higher grass at the spot where the
tree once stood.

>>But also consider that two persons claim to have seen this tree.

>Yes, many people have claimed they've seen Elvis too...two
>witnesses isn't too covincing, now is it?

Yes, but on the other hand there's a possibility that these
witnesses are telling the truth. This is just one those many
examples of indirect positive evidence.

>>But can you be more specific about how then these photos were
>>hoaxed? A model tree?

>I didn't make them too, Jeroen, ask Billy :-)

You are the one who's so sure about these 11 photos having been
hoaxed, so you should at least come with some argumentation.
Saying that they have been hoaxed because they have been hoaxed
isn't very convincing argumentation (understatement).

>>>Remember even his wife saying it'a all a hoax. (Ever since the
>>>'70s! Meier claims so himself!)

>>She was several times a member of a group of people who had a
>>UFO sighting. So there's a multiple witness aspect to keep in
>>mind.

>I had multiple witness sightings too, but none of the people
>present at that time believe for JUST ONE SECOND that Meier is
>for real. Guess that goes for Kaliope too...

I find this quite an irrational argument. What I mean here is,
as anyone should know who has studied the Meier case data, is
that she reportedly was one of those people who has followed
Meier close to the alleged contact cites and then more then once
had a UFO sighting. Although Kalliope's now denies having seen
anything during such events, others present during such events
claim that they together with Kalliope had a UFO sighting.
Another example of indirect positive evidence.

>>>Remember Meier was seen purchasing helium several times.

>>Can you list more details about this. Source? etc.

>I'll look it up for you and send it to you.

Thanks in advance.

>>>Remember the proven cut & paste-edge on picture #200?

>>Was the jpg  from the FIGU site really the source material for
>>this analysis ?

>Haha, this is _so_ typical, first they complain that others
>might have manipulated the pictures now this...

>Well, if that's all that it takes to determine _clear_
>cut-and-paste edges while they're trying to pass'em for real,
>what more would you want???

Of course one needs the analyze the original diapositive before
one can safely conclude that it really is a cut and paste. You
need to now more about the history of the jpg posted on the site
by FIGU.

>>>Etc., etc., etc.

>>>The list above makes you wonder why Meier is still an issue...
>>>Maybe we should accept Rael as truthfull as well, or maybe the
>>>Heaven's Gate cult was right also...

>>>A surprised and wonderin'

>>There's much UFO data in this case which is simply being ignored
>>by most UFO researchers, that data shows that the hoax
>>hypothesis is much more complicated. That data may have
>>important consequences for the ETH. It indicates that "they may
>>be playing games with us." And You only have to study the
>>available Meier case literature to find this out. By doing that
>>you will also find out how 'scientific and unbiased' Korff's
>>work really is.

>What makes you think I didn't?

See my comments about Kalliope in this posting. 

>The more Meier material one reads the more it becomes obvious
>the man's a cult leader making a good living of the ones naieve
>enough to believe his BS!

Well, that your opinion.

Regards,

Jeroen Jansen