Talk:Billy Meier

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Billy Meier article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] 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)


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

[edit] 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!!!

[edit] Reversions

I do not aim at a reversion war and indeed I don't care much about this topic, but I believe that my changes have been in the direction of general improvement and NPOV. Please do not revert without some discussion.Phiwum 19:14, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, but why should someone like yourself choose to venture into such a controversy such as the Billy Meier case?
Because the article sets a very bad example for Wikipedia. I like Wikipedia and I would prefer that the articles found here meet a certain standard for unbiased presentation. I don't really think I set my standards very high either, but this article needs work. Phiwum 13:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

WHO DELETED MY PICTURES?

I did. The thumbnails of book covers look like advertisements to me. I don't see such thumbnails on other pages and so I don't think they go here. If you believe I've overreacted, then please show me some examples of pages where such thumbnails appear or give some other argument why they don't count as advertisement. Phiwum 17:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
The only time I can recall an image of a book in an article is when the article is about the book. And even then it usually isn't done. Bubba73 (talk), 18:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edditing Meier on line.

Thanks for your efforts, but in case you haven't noticed Jesse, myself and a number of others would like to know why you keep edditing this page with a few added errors which you may or may not have previously taken notice. Please discuss the issue with us at- http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Plejarens_are_real_2005

James Truthseeker

No sir, but thanks for your invitation. This is a Wikipedia page, and not a page for your advocacy group. The discussions should stay here. Phiwum 20:59, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, You're right, it is a Wikipedia page, but be advised that it's not just you're page either. In fact, Billy Meier and his group at FIGU can in-force the legal rights to have this page removed should they request it and since the page's topic is specifically focused on them and their controversy and not you.
You know that's utter nonsense, right? As long as the page is not libelous or infringing on copyright, there's very little FIGU can do. In any case, I am not advocating replacing one bias with another. And I'm certainly not claiming this page as mine. Phiwum 13:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
If you don't like their advocacy group, then perhaps you should not be putting your foot down in their issues in the first place otherwise yes you can expect to get your feet muddy for choosing to trek within these muddied Waters. Not just from Billy and FIGU, but also from the skeptics.
I think you mixed one metaphor too many. No idea what you're on about, but I'm sure you feel it passionately. Phiwum 13:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV Discussion Resolution

TerraX, is that you???

OK I'll tell you what, if it is you and I and a few others that are edditing this page, then OK you can email me and vise versa and LET'S us both work on this together on this OK???, I'll tell the others not to interfer. AGREED???

OK let's make this neutral!!!

James Truthseeker

Are you asking if I am TerraX? The answer is no. In fact, you already know my name. Try googling and you'll find easily verifiable information of my identity. Phiwum 21:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I failed to answer your other questions. There's no reason to take this to email. We can just as well work it out on this talk page. Let's do that. You start, since I've said what I dislike about the article already. What parts of my changes do you dislike? And why? Phiwum 21:10, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
OK now that we know you're not TerraX, then OK let's work this out. My changes were actually some improvements on what was already written here, from you and from some other Meier supporters whom, I'm familiar with. While I found some other stuff written out by some other people which I was also attempting to work on for awhile, it was not long before I found your deletions. So let's start from the begginng. Finnish up all your editing the way it is, then when your done I'll make any corrections I may find and if you disapprove then we'll both discuss it along with further ideas for some improvements which can possibly be made. After we have "nutral page", then we can expand out on both sides, whether that be from the skeptics point of veiw or from Billy's, Michael Horn's, FIGU's and so on... (J-Truthseeker March 26 2006)
I don't intend to re-write the page much. I really am not very interested in Meier, but this page needs attention from a neutral and knowledgeable party. (I may be neutral but I don't know much about Meier and I don't intend to spend much time studying him and his critics.)
Among things that obviously need attention: the formatting of the criticism section doesn't fit the Wikipedia standard. More importantly, it is biased towards showing that Meier is reputable, by pointing out that he calls other contactees frauds. Of course, this is utterly irrelevant to criticisms against Meier. Finally, regardless of your opinion of the scholarship found in Korff's book, there should be a balanced discussion of the book on this page. The book is influential and to fail to mention it is inexcusable.
These are a few of the things I've noticed. I may make changes later, but I don't have a grand scheme for what I'll do, so there's not much reason to proceed in the way you suggest. By all means, edit the page in ways you believe are NPOV improvements and we can discuss the results. This is much preferable to a useless revert war. If you want to know why I made the changes I did, I'd be happy to explain — including my removal of the two recent paragraphs. Just ask. Phiwum 07:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

OK I think we are getting somewhere, good. I hope you don't mind me saying, but for someone who may not know to much about Meier as yourself, I'm surprised that you got this far as you did with this article. As for the 2 deleted articles which I had not decided what to do with myself before you deleted them, that was actually written by a guy in Brazil in which case after editing it, a POV reference could be attributed to him in a separate subtopic in his expressed disapproval to whom he was directing it, etc. And not just for him, but others also. BTW: Billy Meier does not call other contactees frauds, I also have a list of people somewhere of what he calls "Real UFO contactees and UFO experiences" such as; Dan Fry, Kenneth Arnold, Wilbur Smith, along with a host of others. Unfortunately much of the details from Meier regarding who he said was real and who isn't, was deleted by UFO investigator Wendelle Stevens in his book report publications. This in particularly led to further unnecessary conclusions about Meier from people. In one or two cases that I know of, Meier and his Plejarens have made errors regarding this which they have already admitted to.

As far as giving comments to Korff's book, I have no problem with that even-though "in my opinion" there are more skillful skeptics then say Korff, But that too can also be referenced and added into a POV subtopic to this one. (J-Truthseeker March 27 2006)

Norm and Jesse, why are your adding and deleting pictures??? (J-Truthseeker 1:10pm March 27 2006)
I think I've given my reasons: the thumbnails give the impression that Wikipedia is Amazon. Other articles do not include thumbnails of referenced materials. I'm sorry if Norm went to a lot of work to add them, but I don't find them appropriate here. Phiwum 21:27, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attention request

I have posted an attention tag for this article. I would like some input from other knowledgeable editors. I did not find a good category for the request, so I put it in "astronomy", but if other interested parties have a better suggestion, by all means let me know. Phiwum 21:31, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually you need not have done that. I think you would have been just fine as you were. Also the category of Astronomy I think is still quiet different then say that of UFOs or UFO-ology. Assuming of course these can be found in Wikipedia.
Of course astronomy is different. But it's the closest category I saw for this topic. The category list can be found at Wikipedia:Pages_needing_attention. Feel free to suggest a better one. Phiwum 07:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps there is a way of adding UFOs to the category list found on pages needing attention. (J-Truthseeker March 27, 2006)
I think it should be there, but I don't know which of the broad categories it belongs under. Bubba73 (talk), 16:05, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Predictions

Shouldn't we have a section or subsection on Meier's predictions and scientific insights learned from the aliens? These seem noteworthy, especially the catastrophic predictions regarding the Toutatis comet, discussed here and here. Any suggestions where and how to discuss this? I propose a subsection in the criticisms section, but I prefer not to write it myself. Phiwum 20:37, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I have this info myself somewhere from Michael Horn, I can do it as soon as I get around to it. (J-Truthseeker 1:00PM, March 27, 2006)
Sounds good, but please be sure to include some material from skeptical sources, too. Also, we don't want a comprehensive listing of hits and misses, but maybe just some representative bits. Just like you (or someone) did in the discussion of photos. Phiwum 21:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Models in photographs

Is there a better citation for the models on a table allegation? Here's the text:

Perhaps the most damning evidence in the skeptics' view was submitted from a reporter investigating Meier's story, who claims to have found negatives clearly showing the models on a table.

The current cite is [4], but it is a very, very brief account. Surely there's something a bit closer to the source? Phiwum 21:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I've ordered Korff's book. I'll try to find it (and other places where a citation is wanted). Bubba73 (talk), 03:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
I cited a few things, but I haven't found references for several of them. I found the photo of the two women that was taken off of a TV screen, but there is no mention of it being from the Dean Martin Show. I haven't found anything about a model from a Sears catalog. I haven't found anything about machine bolts, but there is one with carpet tacks. Bubba73 (talk), 15:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks much, Bubba. We could also use some citations for counterclaims mentioned in the article. Perhaps James Truthseeker and others could provide these? 15:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)




[edit] Discussion from PNA/Astronomy

. This article is fairly blatantly biased in favor of this UFO photographer and investigator. I'm not sure that astronomy is the right category for the request, but a little balance is in order and I'd appreciate someone that knows a bit about the topic. Phiwum 21:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

  • interdimensional hypothesis. This article is nonsensical. Not only does it present a series of highly questionable assertions as fact, but it reads like the output of automated translation software. Ramon123 22:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Looks like pure speculation while under the influence of some intra-dimensional mind-altering substances. There appears to be nothing on the page that is readily testable, so it's at best quasi-rational philosophizing. The page could use some references to prove that it's not actually complete and total bunk. :) — RJH 22:10, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Category deletion.

I figured I would mention this here first. Would there be any objection to deleting the tiny Talmud Jmmanuel and Billy Meier categories? There is a grand total of 4 articles among both... and two of them are the namesake articles.

Now, small categories are fine (See Category:Historical Christian denominations for an example; I've added 3 of those personally, but clearly it could be much larger)... so long as they have potential for expansion later and are sufficiently general. Are there going to be vast piles of articles on Talmud Jimannuel? I somewhat doubt it. Everything of importance you'd want to know is linked from the Billy Meier and Talmud Jmmanuel pages. There's no need for a category. SnowFire 20:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The proposal is now posted and at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 19#Billy Meier Categories, for the interested. SnowFire 15:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gradual deterioration

Every so often, a Meier devotee adds yet another section on an important but esoteric facet of Meier and his remarkable contacts. I have removed one of these and greatly reduced but kept the WWIII prophecy. But Semjase really does not need such detail on an article about Meier and not his Plejaran pals. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phiwum (talk • contribs) 02:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] How about converging the Bible into the topic Jesus?

About the suggestion made on the page Talmud Jmmanuel

I see what kind of dumb suggestions people are making. There come a critique on this article to make NPOV, there comes suggestion to totally vanish this article. VirtualEye 16:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Talmud Jmmanuel is notable enough to warrant its own article. It seems it has more enthusiasts within Wikipedia than outside of it. ←Humus sapiens ну? 00:00, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Humus Sapiens. The article by itself is not so bad, but the lack of interest from the scientific community, or any interest in the book that is not related to its "discoverer" for that matter, would make converging a smart move. [5] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gidonb (talk • contribs) 02:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC).
Sorry about not signing. Thanks for adding the signature! gidonb 22:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

keep seperate it belongs under New Age texts a person doesn't besides I do think there are several reasons why the articles should not be merged--Java7837 04:46, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alien Movie Edits

I know this sounds completly stupid, whean i was trying to watch the Alien beamship movies this guy took, whean i clicked on play, a song from the real player popped up instead of the movie. what if those aliens edited it so you could'nt watch the movies like the aliens were somewhat trying to get this guy to stop taking pictures etc. could it have been theam?--Sonicobbsessed-The Self-Proclamed Ultamate Sonic Fan 22:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removed "TV Interview" section

...as the YouTube videos have been taken down. Here's what I removed:

--Weakmassive 15:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What's really happening here?

I’ve been interested in the Meier case for over twenty years mostly due to it’s entertainment value, even though I myself am incredibly interested in the UFO phenomenon. However, as it seems, more and more people are becoming true believers, or proponents, in this case I just want to remind everyone of the importance of the historic timeline in which this case is centered, and, of course, wherein the entire UFO case is based and when it all started. In 1942, the year Meier reports as the start of his involvement with these proposed extraterrestrials, the first Haunebu disc saw flight. The Vril discs had already seen years of use by this time, although not war-worthy use. The Allieds were also reporting flying discs and balls of light which clearly were intelligently guided during the early ‘40s. There’s no saying what a five-year-old farm boy living in the Swiss Alps would make of seeing such a disc, let alone one parked on his land with an old man standing outside of it; our imaginations may not even come close to what young Meier made of it.

Many UFO researchers, and Meier-case researchers in specific (such as Lee Elders, Randy Winters, Wendelle Stevens and Michael Horn), are leaving much of the details out, and this should not be done. Although most of us are still trying to forget what the Nazi’s did during this time, we must do our own research into their scientific advancement and vast technological achievements before and during the war if we really want to draw a reasonable conclusion to the Meier case and others like it; such as the Adamski (Haunebu disc) case. I say, “do our own research”, because American history books make no mention of it and no institution of education mentions much of Nazi technological advancement, which was quite high. Don’t forget Nazi and German scientists are the ones who put us (USA) in space (Von Braun) after the war.

Another Meier case-specific detail which most researchers and proponents have left out is the detail that these supposed extraterrestrials, whom are reported (by Meier) to speak perfect German and are described (by Meier) as appearing inarguably “Aryan“, talk a lot about enlightenment and spirituality based completely on ancient Hindu and Chinese philosophy. Don’t forget about all the expeditions Himmler sent to Tibet, India, and China in the early ‘30s in search of the Holey Grail and any signs of ancient Aryan man. Who knows what those expeditionary elements brought back with them. One absolutely damning detail, which researchers like Stevens and Winters flat out refuse to divulge, is the extensive lesson Meier was supposedly taught by the Plejaren about destroying Israel and killing all Jews. How could someone propose a case like this and leave out the details that link the Nazi’s to the case without appearing biased. If we’re going to sell something, especially something as historically detailed and significant as this case and what it has done to our beliefs, we can’t leave out details that anyone can discover if they use someone else’s research and not just those of one opinion.

All things being equal, there’s no doubt that Meier saw something extraordinary. He irrefutably documented a case which will defy all modern day logic. He undoubtedly spoke to someone who knew more about technology, philosophy, spirituality, science, and astronomy than he himself could ever have learned without help, a lot of it. The question remains, who were they? Were they aliens who could bend time and space and travel 400 light years in seven hours? Did he meet with aliens, whom to this day choose to share their knowledge only with a farmer living in the Swiss alps? Aliens who’s philosophy makes them appear frighteningly like Nazi’s?

As entertaining as the whole UFO phenomenon is, we must all remember the fact that the whole thing, even the term “Flying Saucer”, is based on our incredible imagination, fueled somewhat by what an amateur pilot saw over the Washington skies that he described and even illustrated perfectly as nine Horten flying wings skipping along in late June of 1947. And what happened when one of those flying wings exploded over an airbase over the New Mexico desert and was later found by another farm boy two weeks after the Washington State sighting? We went saucer and extraterrestrial crazy, and we are still to this very day trying to figure it all out. It’s about time somebody changed one detail in our history books. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 2blackop4$ (talk • contribs) 02:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


Bill Meier is just a hoaxer who wants attention. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.224.233.216 (talk) 22:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)