World-class skeptic goes wide-eyed with wonder!
In March 2015, I attended an all-day skeptics event at Northern Arizona University (NAU). It was there that I saw Prof. Scott Antes, who would subsequently examine the evidence in the Billy Meier UFO case for four months, and then arrange my two historic, first presentations at an American University.
At this same event, I met another really wonderful skeptic, the legendary Prof. Ray Hyman. In addition to watching and thoroughly enjoying his presentation, I managed to introduce him to the Meier evidence by showing him the newest photo book, with 617 of Meier’s pre-computer, pre-digital age UFO photos. Several minutes of Ray’s wide-eyed, virtually speechless perusal of the photos was captured on film by intrepid photo-documentarian, Anthony ”jarjar”Alagna and is including in our aptly titled, When Truth Prevails.
Ray Hyman and Michael Horn, in When Truth Prevails
I’m not implying that Ray agreed with, or grasped, the authenticity and significance of Meier’s still irreproducible, independently authenticated photos. You can draw your own conclusions by watching our interaction in the film.
I’ve frequently noted that the world of the “professional skeptics” is richly populated by many rather intellectually failed poseurs. I long ago pointed out that famous skeptics like Janes Randi and Derek Bartholomaus quietly retracted their claims that the Meier case was a hoax. I’ve run circles around others like Stuart Robbins, Phil Plait, Michael Shermer, etc., etc., simply by standing still and confronting them with Meier’s inescapably accurate and authentic evidence and information.
There are also various characters out there who mainly cluck and roar about UFOs, often wishing they hadn’t, like the completely clueless Stefan Molyneux, and a guy named Lionel who’s apparently a highly qualified prosecutor, as well as interested in UFOs. Unfortunately, when I generously offered to educate him on the Meier case, this roaring Lionel turned out to be yet another mouse that roared (but only silently). And that’s too bad because this is one smart guy who I could have a great conversation with…or debate if he was foolish enough to push his luck.
I’ve also tipped my hat to the hapless skeptics who, setting out to debunk Meier’s specific, prophetically accurate scientific information about Jupiter-Io, ended up corroborating it instead. While skepticism is a ridiculously unnecessary self-description – really, is there anything that can’t be tested by the scientific method so that it needs “special circumstances” to be evaluated? Things are real and authentic, or they’re not, as time-tested methodologies are sufficient to determine.
We often hear the statement, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” but fail to consider that the Earth going around the sun was once considered “extraordinary”, so much so that it could cost you your life to make that claim. How extraordinary would the claim that “in a few years a child will be able to hold the entirety of the information everywhere on Earth in their little hand” have sounded a couple of decades, or less, ago? Unless of course you were Billy Meier, who in 1958, specifically foretold portable telephones (No. 93), along with the internet, etc.
Can’t Fool Me, No Sirree!
Skeptics still don’t get that they have a belief system that somehow the world’s trying to put one over on them but fortunately they’re just a little too sharp to let that happen. So they announce in advance that they’re putting the world on notice that they’re…skeptics, who already know exactly what’s real, what isn’t and how things are “supposed” to be.
All that being said when you meet more mature, deeper thinkers like Profs. Antes and Hyman you appreciate that there are still good critical thinkers out there who are willing to look through the proverbial telescope and struggle, if necessary, with what isn’t supposed to be there.
There are also those poor scientists who know that clinging to the party line is the only way they even remotely hope to assure themselves of an ongoing paycheck.
While I’ve enjoyed jousting with the skeptics, certainly those whose delightful overconfidence preceded their quietly skulking away, I’m not going to be bothering with much of that in 2017…unless openly invited, or challenged, to do so. I did send out one nice, genuine invitation to Prof. Jennifer Raff, offering to instruct her on the realities of the Meier case, only because she had been quoted in a recent blog by Stuart Robbins pertaining to so-called “extraterrestrial disclosure”. While I haven’t yet received a response, for any number of reasons, including perhaps the holidays, etc., I had a moment of bemusement when I considered that my research into the Meier case may well have begun…before she was born.
While such a precedent doesn’t automatically guarantee greater knowledge, etc., since I can safely assume that, like Robbins, Prof. Raff is completely unknowledgeable about the UFO matter, I’ll be curious to see if she has the curiosity and intellectual honesty (she describes herself as a skeptic) to engage. After all, as I frequently say, the confirmed existence of extraterrestrial life would be the most important event in human history…exceeded only by actual contact with it. And with Meier’s claims of 75 years of still ongoing contacts with the Pjejaren, we either have the biggest, longest-running, most impenetrable hoax in human history, or that singularly historical, paradigm shifting reality.
Will Prof. Raff emulate the gracious and respectable Ray Hyman, or does she have no desire to look through that proverbial telescope and risk finding out that she doesn’t already know everything?