Talk:Billy Meier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

One sided[edit]

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., Also every photo has been reproduced All of this should be mentioned if the article is gong to be this long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (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: or Still a big mystery! (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Actually, those photos were among the easiest to debunk, according to multiple sources (one example here). Meier made or purchased model trees to photograph with his model "UFO"s. One example: In photos purportedly taken in different locations, and 6 years apart, the trees are identical -- and there are no trees of that size or shape at either site, nor any historical evidence that any such trees ever grew at those sites. When this was pointed out to the Meier followers, their explanation required substantial suspension of disbelief: The extraterrestrials made the trees disappear, and erased memories of them from the entire populations of both areas. Why they would leave the photographs (and memories of them) alone was never convincingly explained. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 14:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Wendell(e) C. Stevens[edit]

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)

Some proposed changes to make this page more Neutral[edit]

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. (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
And your opinion is relevant to the article how? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
What makes you think engineers are qualified to judge the quality of evidence? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Legitimate sources are being falsely attributed as being unreliable.[edit]

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 (talkcontribs)

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 (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. (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'. (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 :-) (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. (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)
Furthermore, sources we do have point out that a truly reliable photo analysis is impossible without examination of the original negatives, which the Meier people have conveniently "misplaced". DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 13:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite using independent sources[edit]

IMO, the article body badly needs a rewrite using independent sources to better comply with WP:FRINGE. For example, UFOlogist and Meier proponent Wendelle Stevens shouldn't be the source for anything, especially long breathless sections of fringe views regarding metal samples and sound recordings. The same goes for Meier fans Gary Kinder and Marcel Vogel (whose own article could do with some cleanup). Rather than a tabloid POV that focuses on presenting pro and con views regarding Meier's fantastic claims, photos and other "evidence", we would do well to adopt the more objective view reflected in high quality academic sources that take into account the religious and social aspects of Meier's beliefs and those of his followers.

  • James R. Lewis (2002). The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions. Prometheus Books, Publishers. pp. 653–. ISBN 978-1-61592-738-8.
  • Paul Kurtz. Skepticism and Humanism: The New Paradigm. Transaction Publishers. pp. 57–. ISBN 978-1-4128-3411-7.
  • Joe Nickell (29 September 2010). Camera Clues: A Handbook for Photographic Investigation. University Press of Kentucky. pp. 165–. ISBN 0-8131-3828-0.
  • Kal K. Korff. Spaceships of the Pleiades: The Billy Meier Story. Prometheus Books, Publishers. pp. 195–. ISBN 978-1-61592-441-7.
  • Catherine L. Albanese (1 December 2006). A Republic of Mind and Spirit: A Cultural History of American Metaphysical Religion. Yale University Press. pp. 502–. ISBN 0-300-13477-0.

Using higher quality sources also helps avoid the circular argumentation of SELFPUB proponent opinion followed by SELFPUB debunker opinion followed by SELFPUB proponent rebuttal, etc. Above are a few of the sources I've found so far that can support such needed rework. Feel free to add others that may be helpful. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I advocate simply pruning out any content based on such sources. That will shorten the article, which is good, as Meier is virtually unknown to the reality-based community. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)