Read my lips, oh sorry, my words
I said Quetzal is behind the camera
Billy is in front of the camera on the right side of the viewer
You forgot the third option
Billy Meier is telling the unequivocal truth and his contact case with the ET Plejaren is genuine and truthful yet the skeptics have failed to see it because of their personal bias
Hows that sound
Wow for once and thank goodness for that, that someone so reasonable have come forward amongst this lost group to ask real legitimate question that is totally true to the spirit of free thinking and genuine inquiry although Paranoid Randroid and mystic7 I would include on par.
Johhny they are very good questions given in honesty and the genuine spirit that it is given deserving of equally good answers given with respect.
I’ll need to get back to you as they deserve much contemplation and time in order to do it justice.
Thanks for the spirit in which you asked these questions which is still rare in this supposed age of enlightenment
Look unless you go through the words from the horses mouth and see from the others point of view you will never understand the circumstances leading up to why these photos turned out so crappy.
You’ve got to remember that with such an extraordinary case as Billy’s you will never get the kind of response that most expect because they impose and project their own limitations based on the 21st century norms and acculturation and the so called ‘boxed thinking’ approach will not avail a satisfactory answer as what people expect is all that they are after and anything that goes beyond it, they chuck the proverbial fit of incredulity.
Not unless you’ve dealt with the Meier material and Dr Deardorff’s ground breaking work
Yes correct
You are technically correct but even bad brains can be trained to be better thinkers as the human potential is enormous.
I know MIB exists but you don’t
I have contemplated whether its all hogwash without basis of truth and so I have dealt with the FOI declassified government documents on MIB which clearly state that it is true whilst you haven’t
I have applied the Occam’s Razor to Billy Meier’s contact case to conclude that indeed it fits with the overall meaning of ‘one should proceed with simpler theories until greater explanation can replace the simplicity’ although holding to the priori that not all simple explanation ends up being true nor this maxim being an irrfutable principle.
I have gone the whole nine yards having satisfactorily investigated the Billy Meier case before coming to my own independent conclusion free of suggestion, autosuggestion, coercion, manipulation, self interest, bias, prejudice and enticements whilst you on the other hand just looked at the photo to come to your haste conclusions
Who, then, has taken a more reasonable approach to any reasonable minds out there given that any field of inquiry for the want of truth demands the corresponding appreciable effort needed to be divested to get to the bottom line and this being the truth beyond reasonable doubt.
Your argument therefore is weak at best and absolutely illogical at worst.
Tales!? Tales!? what fucking tales!?
Have you even read the Talmud of Jmmanuel!?
Or at the very least the Gospel of Matthew!?
For crying out loud do the only decent thing or at least the very least by doing some god damn reading before you summarily dismiss the case as fraud or hoax.
“Johhny” has just joined this forum, and this is so far his only post. Until he provides more content, my first instinct is that he is intimately connected with you and the other two Meierites.
You think they don’t do this already?
No scientist can declare a theory sound without doing serious investigation into it. However. scientists routinely declare theories unsound without investigating them. Because those theories are garbage. They are obvious nonsense, and putting serious time and effort into investigating them is a complete waste of time and effort. Those theories die in infancy, you don’t hear about them from scientists because they are irrelevant to scientific discovery.
For example, no serious scientist is going to investigate a perpetual motion machine. No matter how many “inventors” claim that they’ve made one, no real scientist is going to spend any of their time actually investigating the claims.
Optical illusions exist, but don’t think that means your eyes are unreliable. Illusions have to be finely crafted in order to fool the eye, they are not accidental. I know what photos of real objects look like, I see them all the time. It is possible to make a photo of a real object look like a model, but it won’t be done accidentally, and won’t be done over and over and over, like Meier’s photos.
Where Can I find a copy of the Talmud Jmannuel online?
Some searching turns up many sites with commentary on the TJ. I can buy a dead tree copy of the TJ (used) on Amazon. What I can’t find is a copy of the TJ I can read online.
If someone came up with a document on old-looking paper that purported to be from the first century, but was written in modern English using Verdana font, I would dismiss it as a fraud without bothering to read it. The anachronistic nature of the document would indicate that it was a fraud even without reading the text.
In the very same way, if someone wanders into a discussion and makes the absurd claim that a name that first appears in the 1970s uses the “correct spelling” for a “person” who is supposed to have been around over two millennia earlier and another “person” who was around more than 600 years before that and the “correct spelling” involves the use of a letter that is only 550 years old in the Roman alphabet when the original documents were written in Greek, I will dismiss that as an obvious invention created by some twit who did not even do enough research to avoid a blatant error in his claim.
YMMV, obviously.
How does one pronounce “Jmmanuel”, anyway?
The first “m” is silent.
So,** newinitiation**, this brings back the question that I asked earlier. Do you know johnny, or any of the other pro-meier (theBodhi, mystic7) people who have participated in this thread outside of the Straight Dope Message Board?
It rarely, rarely is. When intelligent people are skeptical of some guru, wild scifi tale or other outlandishness they are usually correct to think that way.
In most cases there is no baby, and the bathwater is rancid sewer drainings.
Yet after a certain point we would not be remiss in thinking that something is a fraud or hoax. Especially if the evidence we are given are hubcap UFOs, dinosaur pictures from books, a load of dreck philosophy, and 70’s TV dancers presented as aliens.
And in this case the material fails.
But you’ve missed the point. The point was that the 'I was skeptical at first, but…" routine is such a cliche that it has zero value to any argument. The person who declares might have been skeptical, but they are almost certainly missing some critical thinking skills that makes their initial impressions and subsequent conversion irrelevant to those who are more able to assess a potential hoax.
It’s like starting your argument with “I used to use logic and reason…”
I’ve read some of your blog. I don’t believe you’ve ever been skeptical of anything.
Dude, I’m not going to make a UFO model and film it. I have a job, and a life, and a basement floor that needs carpet glue scraped off of it. That’s not duplicity, are you sure that word means what you think it does?
Just like Project Alpha. Fooling one group of credulous folks isn’t nearly enough to convince a rational person of Meier’s claims.
At least one of them does. No UFO hokum, no UFO book sales for Elders.
You can use this exact seem reasoning to prove that the Project Alpha subjects really had psychic powers, or that the aforementioned Cottingley Fairies were real. Clearly, fooling one group of investigators isn’t enough, now is it?
Yeah, it does, actually. It doesn’t mean he’s wrong, of course, but it means his word isn’t enough. Nor is anyone’s, though; Barrack Obama and Stephen Hawking could hold a joint press conference to announce that Joe Biden had been visited by aliens for years, and until I see proof, I ain’t believing it.
Hey, every Messiah needs apostles, right?
Also, I’ve leveled no slurs, profanities, or malice at the case.
Does Billy have a career 4.25 ERA, 10 years in the majors, and a no-hitter? I didn’t think so.
Meh. If the cursory is this unconvincing, I highly doubt devoting my life to studying it would change anything.
In that case, if you believe the MiB-photo-switch story, then your version of skepticism is worthless.
Non-profit just means that revenue in excess of expenses must be reinvested, or kept as cash on hand. Salaries count as expenses.
Good for him to be such a go-getter, that he doesn’t let having one arm stop him from taking people’s money.
I see a lot of dancin’, not so much citing best evidence. Hmmmm.
I give up, you win! The verdict is in! You’ve convinced me, I belieeeeeeve!
I’m sure the rest of the Dope is right behind me…