Talk:Billy Meier

old talk

Kal Korff's book Spaceships of the Pleiades is coming out in an all new series. Contrary to what Meier believers claim, Korff's expose of Meier has largely held up. In the new versions, people will be empowered to fake their own "UFO" photos just like Billy Meier.

If anyone here has actually gone through the material carefully, it become shockingly apparent that meier is just a deluded old man. All his contact notes are full of self aggrandising nonsense about overpopulation etc. in fact contact 264, which deals with the topic that Maury referred to, of the two pictures of aliens, meier tries to explain it away saying that he had amnesia at the time the photos were taken, and that the "Men in black" faked them. This article should definately be more balanced, and mention specifically that the photos were infact just a couple of obscure models that meier thought nobody would recognise. [BeliefInSkeptic]

This article seems shockingly uncritical. I think it should at least mention the fact that the UFO that appears in many of his pictures was found to be a model stored in his garage. Moreover many of the photos show obvious signs of double-exposure and other simplistic tricks. In one case a photograph he claimed was of an alien appears to be a picture of Dean Martin snapped from a television.

To anyone not seeking enlightenment from alients, Meier is simply a guy who's little fun hoax got out of control until everyone interested, himself included, believed it. It also attracted the attention of the "professional" myth busters, who's attention he did not find so fun.

There are others that are not so kind. Meier's wife described the "foundation" as a cult, or at least a swindling excersize.

Maury 12:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Excuse me? The photos were a mixture of snapshots of members of the Golddiggers, a singing group that worked with Dean Martin, and not of Dean Martin himself. Many of the photos have been altered by others and presented as being Meier's when they are not, etc., and this has been documented. Did you just skim over an article by Kal Korff about this issue and then regurgitate his information as fact, or what? Matthew A.J.י.B. 22:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Criticism is good, but before you assert such claims as fact, you might want to document your sources. The Meier photos have held up extremely well under critical scrutiny against all kinds of tests. Besides light table examinations, they include background and foreground reference objects, reflections, etc., the motion video is supposed to be excellent -- and all this decades before photoshop and computer generation, and that's before mentioning the other evidence, from then-unfakeable audio to metal samples, as I recall. The chief criticism I've seen is in regard to ones he claims were taken in space rather than ground-based, which Moorsbrugger (sp?) discusses in his book, and an ex-wife you'd have to admit also presents some partiality issues. But ufo's are real, as I know first-hand, and the evidence favors the guy. Check out Michael Horn on this subject, the first link in the list, he's got some very good exchanges with skeptics. Chris Rodgers 07:18, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see a picture of his 'wedding cake UFO' in the article. Anybody who sees it who has a basic visual literacy or any confidence in their own senses will have all the information they need.

Actually, from what I've heard, the models were brought to Billy's house for photos to be taken and compared to his photos. His wife, including some others that claimed to have seen the aliens with Meier, took a lie detector test and passed saying that they saw aliens. His wife and him got devorced so whatever she has to say could be a lie because they may not get along anymore. You have to judge the case on facts, not just opinions and theories. If you did that with everything, you wouldn't get very far when trying to build things for example. I also heard that some myth busters or whoever tried to duplicate one of his photos but couldn't. They have been put under intense scrutiny and nothing has been proving otherwise from what he has stated. I'm not saying that he's telling the truth. I'm just saying that the case really needs to be looked at inside and out so it can be over with. There still isn't a definitive answer of if he is sencere. But more evidence falls in his favor. Oh, and if it is a hoax, it is more than a little hoax. He should be thrown in jail if it is. He's claims to have had contact since 1942 I think. That's a long time to hold on to some hoax. And his life has been threatened over 20 times. I wouldn't go out of my way to pull a hoax if I might get killed and not even get rich from my hoax.

Roland Reid. Email me if you have more to talk about the case. Roland_Reid23@yahoo.com

---

I can sympathize.

I added some interesting stuff about the name "Semjaze". I think it would be interesting (and a bit chilling) to consider (Aaron Donahue has nothing on this guy!). Also consider some of the predictions made by Meier (supposedly most of them came true).

RoyBot 06:23pm, Dec 18 2005

This comment added with signature and time stamp to facilitate archiving. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

NPOV tag

This page is embarrassingly credulous, with every other word a link to some page on FIGU, the organization founded by Meier. Phiwum 21:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Phiwum has a point in that "every other word a link to some page on FIGU", however if one goes through the links on the page you will find that there are links to opposing viewpoints and criticisms, including a link to the "table top model", the book from which the "dinosaur photo" was copied, the Dean Martin show actresses, etc., etc. The external links are provided to enhance the information presented in this encyclopedic entry. The breadth of this case is such that to get a grasp on it either pro or con requires a vast amount of study and thought. The Kal Korff book which is the source of much debunking of this case has itself been thoroughly debunked as shoddy "investigative research". This case is the single most controversial case in Ufology, and with good reason. For an extensive bibliography of this case, both pro and con, see http://www25.brinkster.com/chancede/Meier.html

There is no particular balance to the article at all. I am not very interested in Meier, frankly, and won't rewrite the whole thing myself, but it needs improvement. As an example of less credulous presentation, I have rewritten:

Meier's unique photography, he maintains, resulted easily from the fact that he was (and currently is) in direct face-to-face contact with the humanoid extraterrestrials who fly the crafts (called beamships). He was given permission by the extraterrestrials (called Plejarens) to photograph and film their beamships during aerial maneuvers in order to produce the best evidence for extraterrestrial visitation of Earth, and thereby to create a controversy to stimulate thinking about the matter and its impact on humanity.

Now it reads

Meier has created a large collection of controversial photographs. He claims that these photos show spaceships (called beamships} as well as extraterrestrials (call Plejarens). Meier says that the Plejerans have given him permission to photograph and film their beamships in order to produce the best evidence for extraterrestrial visitation of Earth. This should stimulate thinking about the matter and its impact on humanity. These claims are disputed by both UFO skeptics[1] and some UFO believers[2], who argue that the photographs could easily be faked[3] and are unpersuasive.

My writing can certainly be improved, but it's a start. Personally, I find the whole premise very odd. How on earth would questionable photos provide "the best evidence"? If the Plejarens want to provide undeniable evidence, then a four hour tour of New York City would probably do the trick better. But I don't think my criticism belongs in the article, so I'll just mention it here instead.

My point is that the previous paragraph took Meier's word at face value, without any mention that the photographs are controversial. Of course, there is indeed some discussion of the controversy below (in need of formatting), but this discussion has no references to skeptical articles.Phiwum 09:19, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The more I look at Meier, the more ludicrous that this page doesn't mention the Korff book. I don't really care what you think of it. It is clearly an influential criticism of Meier and it should be mentioned on this page. The fact that Korff isn't mentioned anywhere is a perfectly good indication of bias. Phiwum 09:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Just couldn't let it rest now. You people just had to parrot Meier's unsubstantiated propaganda, including "pointing out the frauds". Still on that quest for authority. Seeing this highly subjective article which of course omits a few negative details such as Meier's imprisonment and his desertion from the French Foreign Legion (left it?), I can only hope the moderators of Wikipedia act swiftly in restricting this biased article which is entirely based on the claims of one questionable individual. (TerraX)

bando de débeis mentais! bando de palhaços cegos desgraçados que tentam tampar o sol com a peneira, voces estão lascados seus bandos de burros dos infernos!!!

Queria que uma mulesinha das Plêiades viesse me fazer uma visita também... Ai mas não deve ser para o meu bico :(

This comment added with sig and time stamp to facilitate archiving. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Billy Meier meeting Jesus Christ

82.40.232.210 (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC) From my research into the subject of Billy Meier which is extensive but by no means exhaustive Billy never claimed to have met Jesus Christ. He claims to have met a man called Jmmanuel who he claims existed at around the time of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ never existed according to Mr Meier. In fact Mr Meier states that Christianity is a corruption of the teachings of Jmmanuel. He also claims his human spirit is the same as that which incarnated as Jmmanuel and other prophets throughout many thousands of years in the past. If you would like a source then there are plenty at www.figu.org, us.figu.org, www.theyfly.com and my own website www.futureofmankind.co.uk. A good one might be http://us.figu.org/portal/BillyMeier/HisWork/ClarificationofaDefamatoryClaim/tabid/58/Default.aspx because it is from the USA website of Billy Meier's official organisation called FIGU. Does this qualify as relevant and substantial evidence towards the case of not including that section on Mr Meier meeting Jesus Christ (that I recently removed), please?

Jamesgtmoore (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC) I just want to say that 82.40.232.210 is me and I've now recovered my password. :)

[[[User:Davidacaruso|Davidacaruso]] (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC) 2008-09-02] The main point, which is obvious, is being dodged deliberately in the above discussion. Of course we know that Jmmanuel is the same person that others call Jesus. Meier said that the word "Christ" is an evil word, and that part of the mission of the Pleiadians (or Plejaren, if you like; we know to whom it refers) is to destroy organized religions like Christianity. This is a task that obviously Meier will fail at, since he is obviously a hoaxer. This sad truth comes to light when you consider the unabridged version of the Contact Dialogues which detail the conversation between Meier and the Jesus/Jmmanuel. Of course, such a dialogue is hard to stomach as remotely credible to most people, and so it was left out. But the dialogue does exist, and was transcribed, and is part of Meier's story, which is why I have added it to Wikipedia. Those wishing to know more about Meier will want to know this information; because it is important to know that Meier claims, mostly indirectly, but succinctly, that Meier is the incarnation of Jesus (i.e. Jmmanuel). Those who would defend Meier's credibility would bury this information. But then you are playing a misinformation game; you are hiding the truth, and you are hiding information put out by Meier, which I have in my library, because it was sent directly to me by Wendelle Stevens (who, like Dr. James Deardorff, unfortunately believe Meier's claim of not only having met Jesus but actually being the incarnation of him). If you want to know truth, then you will objectively evaluate this piece of information. But if you only want to maintain the fantasy world of Mr. Meier, then you will either deny or believe this information, full while knowing that for most people it will be impossible to stomach. And that is why the poster keeps removing it. Because it is damming, but true and relevant information about Mr. Meir.

The above link provides a clarification that Meier says he is not the incarnation of Jesus. But it states repeatedly that Meier is the "great prophet of the new age" and the true prophet for "the entire terrestrial world". And it states on a common-sense level that Meier is the reincarnation of Jesus with these words, quoted from Meier's book "Om":

"And the son of man shall be in torment for a long time, and he shall be reborn in many lives as prophet; and he shall begin his mission on Earth as Enoch and return another time as Elijah, then as Isaiah, whom he shall follow as Jeremiah and Jmmanuel and then as Mohammed. And he shall be the prophet of the New Age, when the time of times will be ripe, and when his name shall say that he is the guardian of the treasure ..."

There is a piece of paper, claimed to be ancient, provided to Stevens by Meier that shows a list of prophets, Jmmanuel among them, that ends with Meier. Common sense tells us that something is amiss when you consider Meier's actual standing in the world, the content and meaning of his work, and the lack of true evidence (evidence not tampered with so many times by the "Men in Black"). Meier's writings are obscure, even to those involved in UFO research. His talking about "worldwide enemies" is a joke when you consider the handful of people who are interested in his work. In reality he has no impact on this world and his writings are of no consequence, and his story of being the only person on Earth being contacted by the Pleidians who are apparantly very heavily influencing our world falls flat when you expand your thinking to include common sense reality. His writings will be of little consequence in the future; Meier is only one of many people who have such writings and books, who claim exclusive contacts with enlightened ETs, and who claim to be the saviors of mankind. It is a common story. But for some it so gripping on a psychological level that they voluntarily suspend reason and insert themselves into Meier's fantasy bubble, and claim those that stand up for truth are only cynical and actually the enemies of truth. Yes, debunkers get it wrong more often than not, and they are often heavily biased. But in the Meier case they are more right than wrong. The proof is in Meier's importance and standing in the world, which amounts to nothing. True "prophets" had /real/ consequence in their times. Meier is nothing but a brilliant liar, but a liar he is, unfortunately. For those caught in his mind-web, common sense has no place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidacaruso (talk • contribs) 17:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Jamesgtmoore (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC) David, thanks for your verbose point-of-view, I enjoyed reading it.

I thought that the whole point of Wikipedia is to simply write the known facts only and to stay neutral at all times? So you are of the opinion that Meier is a hoaxer this is quite clear but you are wrong to be so biased on an encyclopedia. Biased articles is not what Wikipedia is all about, you know this surely. Therefore the subject of whether or not he is a hoaxer should include both sides of the story, be balanced, neutral or not be included at all since this would lead readers to come to false conclusions.

Your obviously negatively-biased opinion of Meier's claims is also irrelevant to the objective of Wikipedia. What is relevant are the facts about this man called Eduard Albert Meier, also known as Billy. Full stop. Facts must also have references in the world of Wikipedia and the paragraph on Meier's meeting with Jesus has no reference since the referred to source states different facts than what is stated in the paragraph in this article. Therefore your statement was not a truthful fact.

The paragraph therefore states a lie and so it should be removed. I will prove how it is not stating truthful facts if you read on.

The MESSAGE 2 book (Message from the Pleiades The Contact Notes of Billy Meier Volume 2) of which I also have a copy, says that Meier met Immanuel but on the following pages the spelling used changes to Jmmanuel (poor editing of the book perhaps?). So lets use Jmmanuel as the correct spelling on the name from now on. A more recently published book called the Talmud of Jmmanuel which is endorsed by Meier also proves the correct spelling is with a J.

For proof of the above facts in the above paragraphs please see screenshot of the relevant page in the book here. You can clearly see that it does not refer to meeting a man called Jesus Christ as per your paragraph. Ok yes most people of this world are not familiar with the name Jmmanuel but even so the truth should be stated in this article. There are no ifs and buts here when talking about facts. You don't say to your wife or girlfriend, "Today I had a chat with my manager, Bob" when he is actually called Fred do you?! State the facts please.

The truth is also that Meier claims to have gone back in time and met some guy called Jmmanuel, not Jesus. I'm not saying that its a proven fact that Meier went back in time and met Jmmanuel. I said that he claims...

It must also be stated that in the preface of MESSAGE 2 which the paragraph uses as a reference is the following text: "As with the first MESSAGE book, which we never intended to write either, we continued our translation effort and completed more of the original translations with all the translation problems we had experienced with the first volume. Eduard "Billy" Meier has not approved this volume either, and has asked us to desist in our efforts as this was not intended for anybody but his small group of friends". So there we are a fact that tells us we cannot rely on that book to truthfully and accurately represent Meier's claims. Please see screenshot of the book's preface here.

As for your sentence on the man called Jischi who Billy punched, the facts are that the MESSAGE 2 book states on page 505 that the man called Jitschi (not Jischi as you wrote) was punched by Meier after repeated warnings for cursing as Jitschi lost his mind after going back in time and then was told he was about to meet Jmmanuel! In this context it would be understandable for an average man of Earth "lose ones marbles" during such a trip.

Regardless of Billy's physical attack on Jitschi (or you could say "attempt to bring Jitschi to his sense") afterwards, his companion, the ET woman Asket (allegedly of the Timar human race from the DAL Universe) said to Meier, "You have treated right." (bad translation from German to English obviously) to mean that he deserved it and then a bit later on after Jitschi had recovered from his "wake up call" Jitschi said to Asket, "Let him go, I am guilty myself. He only did what he had to do. It was all right so, for I had really turned mad, and his hit was a good medicine. He brought me to my senses again. All was too much for me. I just don't bear it. Please excuse and be not angry about me." Again it's obvious the translation leaves something to be desired here.

Furthermore even Jmmanuel said to Meier, "My words are no reproach. You have done right, he was in need of this pain. He lost control over his senses.". Now don't you agree that now this all sounds like reasonable correctional behaviour towards a man gone mad? Reasonable given the context of the situation? Is this now an accurate portrayel of some of the events surrounding Billy's visit to Jmmanuel (AKA the real Jesus)? In my opinion, yes it does.

For proof please see the most relevant 2 pages from the book where Jitschi "loses his marbles" page 1, page 2.

And on a personal level from one human to another; regarding your belief in reincarnation, or lack thereof, this is something you need to come to terms with yourself. I only ask you to reconsider how you evaluate an extraordinary claim such as the claims of Mr Meier for your own human spirit's evolutionary benefit. If you think that Jesus Christ's existence is possible and that the events depicted in the Book of Revelations (or indeed any religious book) are possible then logically you must also think that Mr Meier could be a reincarnation of the real Jesus Christ, called Jmmanuel, otherwise you are illogical yourself since both subjects are as fantastic as each other from the laymans/average-Joe's point of view. The ability to prove either case is nigh on impossible in material terms. In these fantastic cases one must use logical thinking to dismiss the impossible and let the possible remain to be possible even though it may not be so probable according to ones belief system.

Sorry I took so long to respond.

Kind Regards

James

This comment added with signature and time stamp to facilitate archiving. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

POV

This article is ten times too long for a man whose only claim to fame is supposedly talking to aliens. It shoulds take no more than three small paragraphs at most to cover him. If no one can provide a a valid rationale I am going to pare this down.71.108.139.195 (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disapprove. Encyclopedic relevance (which seems to be what you are talking about, not POV) isn't about what you or I think or how likely a claim is. It's about phenomena that occur. The rest is about how you describe them, not if.

So, if a phenomenon is widespread enough, it merits inclusion and at some length. And if you (or most sensible people you can think of) can't see any truth in it – for one thing you (and they) may still miss something; for another, the subject may still hold considerable ethnographical, historical, psychological or similar interest. Just as an article about Augustinus or Muhammed holds even to many of us who are not Christian or Moslem, respectively.

As for the UFO subject, it's both significant and controversial, as can be seen in other articles on it, and this man seems to be a figure of some importance in it. 79.102.42.199 (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Los metales

Nadie toma en cuenta, que el Sr. Meier, sometio a estudios cientificos, algunos metales, desconocidos en la tierra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.1.23.170 (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)