Old Project Avalon Forum (ARCHIVE) - View Single Post

Majorion · 01-13-2010, 04:09 PM

Oh no, not Billy Meier again!

The thing is, I'm very open minded, like many of you, Ive researched the Meier case over and over again giving him the benefit of doubt, kept tossing and turning, and I keep arriving at essentially the same conclusion.

Which is, Billy Meier may have had genuine experiences in his earlier times, experiences which remained very local to him but the evidence is absent there anyway. Most of the evidence we see are either a combination of fakerys and a few real ones, or all of it is fake.

One thing you cannot escape with this case, is Billy Meier's deliberate fakerys. There is a limit to which questionable evidence can be entertained, as well the 'contamination' hypothesis, but his wedding cake photos, the woman from the magazine, the toy gun, the dinasour, and all that, is testament to deliberate deception on his part, and therefore, one can never accept any of his other evidence genuinely, simply because its been proven over and again that he faked other things, so whats to stop him from faking all of it?

Bottom line, think of it this way for example -- would you ever introduce a "ufological newbie" to the Meier case? I know I wouldn't!

01-13-2010, 04:09 PM	#15
Majorion Avalon Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: ∞ Posts: 654	Re: Billy Meier discussion cont. Oh no, not Billy Meier again! The thing is, I'm very open minded, like many of you, Ive researched the Meier case over and over again giving him the benefit of doubt, kept tossing and turning, and I keep arriving at essentially the same conclusion. Which is, Billy Meier may have had genuine experiences in his earlier times, experiences which remained very local to him but the evidence is absent there anyway. Most of the evidence we see are either a combination of fakerys and a few real ones, or all of it is fake. One thing you cannot escape with this case, is Billy Meier's deliberate fakerys. There is a limit to which questionable evidence can be entertained, as well the 'contamination' hypothesis, but his wedding cake photos, the woman from the magazine, the toy gun, the dinasour, and all that, is testament to deliberate deception on his part, and therefore, one can never accept any of his other evidence genuinely, simply because its been proven over and again that he faked other things, so whats to stop him from faking all of it? Bottom line, think of it this way for example -- would you ever introduce a "ufological newbie" to the Meier case? I know I wouldn't!