Talk:Billy Meier

Some proposed changes to make this page more Neutral

Last year this page was Neutral, showing boths aspects of Billy Meier Case. Currently it has been edited by extracting evidence in favor of the case and including a lot of evidence against him. So it has lost Neutrality. I think a controversy is very valuable, considering both sides. I uderstand it is difficult for some people to accept this case is real and it is good to keep the evidence that indicates this case is false. But it is also good idea to include evidence that indicates the case is real. I have been making scientific studies about the Case evidence, that has been opened for debate. I do not know why reference to my work was deleted a few months ago. I am a realiable source, and my work was peer reviewed by a scientist, Professor James Deardorff, and Matthew Wieczkiewicz, who worked as Engineer in the Space Shuttle program reviewed it. I am suggesting to include back information from Professor James Deardorff (RIP) and information about my investigations. Otherwise this page would be totally bias which is not what we want from Wikipedia.

Rhal zahi (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Mainstream appears to have a biased and hostile attitude towards the Billy Meier case. Although it's true that his claims are extraordinary, I think his evidence are being dismissed too readily by the critics who want to discredit him. They really go the long way to put him in a bad light. 104.234.242.16 (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Criticism

I don't have the time nor inclination to listen to the Exposing Pseudoscience podcasts provided in the external links section, but if these are able to be accepted as good and valid sources they should be used as inline citations within the main body of the article where appropriate. Laval (talk) 10:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources

Maybe it's been mentioned before, but there is no reason for this article to be using any primary or self-published sources considering that it seems there are more than enough secondary and tertiary sources, both pro and con, that can be used. Referencing the "contact reports" and other works of Meier is totally unnecessary. Laval (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC) -I have removed the entire section.

One sided

This article is skewed toward an obvious hoaxer. There is plenty of evidence online that a large section of his photos were rip offs from other sources. http://www.billymeierufocase.com/dinosaurphotodeconstruction.html, http://www.billymeierufocase.com/asketdeconstruction.html. Also every photo has been reproduced http://www.billymeierufo.com/ All of this should be mentioned if the article is gong to be this long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.47.212.54 (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

From all the photographs in the websites above, there is one category of photographs that Billy Meier published which doesn't seem to be reproducible, and these are the ones where the UFO is actually partial hidden behind the tree. Here is an example of one of these photographs with the UFO behind the tree: http://www.tjresearch.info/fotolft.jpg or https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HQO3yUA5S3Y/maxresdefault.jpg. Still a big mystery! 104.234.242.16 (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Wendell(e) C. Stevens

Stevens was a UFOlogist and Meier supporter. The "Metal samples" section should not be cited to such a WP:PROFRINGE source.- LuckyLouie (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Legitimate sources are being falsely attributed as being unreliable.

The following sources have been labelled as unreliable and self-published without merit. These sources neither claim the authenticity of the claims made by the person in topic, nor deny them. They simply state the scientific results of studies performed on the evidence available from the case. They do not promote 'UFO' as being real, but simply that the objects in the photographs were large objects photographs from a distance, which could have been models as well, as this possibility was never ruled out. The scientific and analysis reports are available in video and book format, signed by the individual scientists or analysts. These analysis took place without a doubt based on the following sources (including Television broadcasts from a well-known television network).

These sources include:

Kinder, Gary (1987-04-01). Light Years: An Investigation into the Extraterrestrial Experiences of Eduard Meier (First Edition edition ed.). New York, N.Y.: Atlantic Monthly Pr. ISBN 9780871131393.

The Billy Meier UFO Case-2 (1980-10-01), Billy Meier - Nippon TV UFO documentary (Japanese, 1980), retrieved 2017-04-03

Elders, Brit; Elders, Lee; Meier, Billy; Stevens, Wendelle (1987-03-01), Contact, retrieved 2017-04-03

Stevens, Wendelle; Elders, Lee (1988-01-01). UFO... Contact from the Pleiades, Volume 1. Phoenix, Ariz.: Genesis III Pub. ISBN 9780937850022. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.234.244.78 (talk • contribs)

Kinder's book praising Meier's photographs, a couple of sensational TV documentaries, and UFO kook Wendelle Stevens are clearly WP:PROFRINGE sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Scientific analysis performed, documented and signed by independent researches including the US Navy, NASA Jet-Propulsion Laboratory and IBM Chemist Lab are reliable sources. These documents exist and are backed by their researchers. The documentaries were produced back in the 1980's and in lower quality video, which doesn't mean these reports aren't valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.234.244.78 (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

You're not listening. Gary Kinder's book has been widely criticized for selection bias and ignoring obvious contrary evidence. (One example is here.) And even Kinder was forced to admit that Meier confessed to carving a small model flying saucer which he used for "some" of his photos. Wendelle Stevens, as already noted above, was a UFOlogist and Meier supporter; his website and book are the farthest things from WP:RS. I have not seen the Japanese TV show, but TV documentaries rarely qualify as RS because they tend to play fast and loose with the facts, particularly where UFOs and similar subjects (Sasquatch, Nessie, ghosts, etc.) are concerned; they are not bound by the traditional rules of fact checking and reliable source citing. And please sign your posts. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, nevertheless the scientific analysis are present and signed by the individual scientists. These reports do not conclude the existence of exterrerstials, but simply that the object in the photograph is a large object photographed from a distance, how can these be denied? These analysis reports are signed by independent contractors and researchers and even from sources such as NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and IBM. Are you denying that these analysis never took place? When evidence like actual scientific documents signed by the individual scientists are ignored or attributed as unreliable without merit, how can any new insight be gained. This article appears to be biased towards putting down any possible evidence and are replaced by self-published sources on the internet with analytic capacities much less credible than the institutions mentioned above. 104.234.244.78 (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's take a step back for a moment. From your edits to the article, one might conclude that you're not familiar with the encyclopedia's editorial policies. I would urge you to read WP:FRINGE, particularly WP:FRIND. A cable TV show might produce a program, or a UFOlogist might publish a book, claiming NASA or IBM concluded something, and that conclusion somehow supported a fringe claim. But Wikipedia requires a source that's independent of the fringe claims. In addition, the encyclopedia is WP:NOTNEUTRAL, in the sense that we don't give equal weight to fringe vs. mainstream views. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, I see how this topic can be sensitive and fringe, of course as we cannot confirm the existence of extraterrestrials. Mainstream definitely has not accepted this as reality. But if in one of the books mentioned above, there is a scientific report which can be cross-referenced with several other sources, signed by known institutions (NASA/IBM, etc) and contractors and also filmed while they gave their conclusions, shouldn't the facts be made known? These do not support a fringe theory, but simply that the object is a large object photographed from distance, no one is forced to accept that it is a 'real UFO'. 104.234.244.78 (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

If the "scientific report" you're referring to is Vogel's analysis of the "extraterrestrial" metal, it was not "signed off" by IBM -- he was an IBM employee, but there is no indication that he did his analysis under IBM's auspices. As to the analysis, there was no peer review, and since the sample conveniently disappeared after he analyzed it, it is unlikely that any will be forthcoming; and an independent group reported that his findings did not necessarily demonstrate what he said they demonstrated, as reported in the article. We've already explained that the "books mentioned above" do not constitute WP:RS. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 22:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Also I should add that the mainstream view according to our reliable sources is that Meier's spaceship photos were most likely created using models. The viewpoint that the photos showed full spaceship-sized objects is unquestionably a fringe theory. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I can understand that Wikipedia is bound to only publish what is known by Mainstream media and that's fair, in the event that it may unintentionally provide inconclusive evidence. But in your conclusion that sources such as the independent investigations group are more reliable than actual contractors and employees of known institutions who use sound scientific methods, then that's unfortunate and a real bias in the journalism of this article in my opinion. But so be it I guess, we will see in a couple of decades whether these mainstream view points change :-) 104.234.244.78 (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Analysis showing that the objects in the photographs are large objects photographed from a distance do not conclude that it is a real 'space-ship'. It could be a large model photographed from a distance. 104.234.244.78 (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and I understand why UFOlogists argue that such a large model could not be created, transported and suspended by a one-armed man working by himself. However the issue is entirely moot, since we don't have any reliable independent sources that say Meier's photos are of large objects seen at a distance. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)