Date Thu, 4 Mar 2004
Subject Re [Plejarans_are_real] 03-03-04 CFI-West Press Release
For Immediate Release
UFO Believer Fails Challenge To Prove His Claim!
Proponent Unwilling to Provide Evidence to Back His Claim
Los Angeles, CA For the past three years, Michael Horn, the self-described Authorized American Media Representative for The Billy Meier Contacts, has been claiming that The Center for Inquiry-West (CFI-West) has failed to prove that the Billy Meier photographs are a hoax and therefore the Billy Meier photographs are of real extraterrestrial spaceships.
This is, of course, a logical fallacy. In addition, Michael Horn's original challenge was to "duplicate the effect" of the Meier photos, not to prove the case a hoax.
On Wednesday, February 11, 2004, The Independent Investigations Group (IIG) and CFI-West published a side-by-side comparison of "fake" UFO photos taken by members of the IIG versus "real" UFO photos taken by Billy Meier on the IIG website at www..iigwest.com/ufopix.html. Having successfully completed Michael Horn's original challenge to "duplicate the effect" of the Billy Meier photos, he then changed the challenge to include having the IIG photos tested in the same manner he claims the Billy Meier photos were tested. He also said that he had a piece of metal that he claims to have come from an extraterrestrial spacecraft that also proves that Billy Meier has had contact with extraterrestrial visitors.
On Friday, February 27, 2004, The IIG and CFI-West challenged Michael Horn to provide ONE original camera roll of negatives, out of the approximately 1,200 supposed UFO photos taken by Billy Meier, and a small piece of the metal he claims to have come from an extraterrestrial spacecraft as physical evidence for examination.
Less than two hours after receiving this challenge, Michael Horn emailed back a refusal to provide ANY actual physical evidence to back up his claim. CFI-West and the IIG suspect that any physical material he would provide for testing would show the Billy Meier case to be a hoax, and that Mr. Horn might lose income selling DVDs and giving lectures about the Billy Meier UFO claims.
This refusal to back up a claim with hard evidence is not new to the IIG, whose business it is to investigate fringe science, paranormal and extraordinary claims from a rational, scientific viewpoint, and disseminate factual information about such inquiries to the public. You can visit www.iigwest.com for information on other claims that people have made to the IIG in the past. To see the entire correspondence with Michael Horn and his claims go to www.iigwest.com/horn.letters.html and to see the comparison of photos taken by the IIG versus photos taken by Billy Meier go to www.iigwest.com/ufopix.html.
The Center for Inquiry-West is the west coast home to the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal (CSICOP), publisher of Skeptical Inquirer magazine. Visit our website at www.cfiwest.org, or call (323) 666-9797
REPLY from Michael Horn
Authorized American Media Representative
The Billy Meier Contacts
www.theyfly.com
Gosh, Derek, Where shall we start?
I know, first let's clarify the challenge, one at which you were not in attendance, since it was Mr. Vaughn Rees who stated that the Meier photos and films were an "easily duplicated hoax". No mention was made of duplicating the "effect" but rather duplicating the pictures/films, which will bring us to further criteria in a moment. Of course, I also appreciate your backing away from what CFI West, Michael Shermer and Mr. "Amazing" have said, i.e. claiming that the Meier case is a hoax, which you do again in this brilliant submission of yours. By the way, Mr. "Amazing" yesterday declined to argue against the case, an interesting surrender from a man who has $1,000,000 (and a noble reputation) on the line here. You really should post Mr. "Amazing's" brief statement of retreat on your site as well.
Now, once again, nothing was changed regarding the criteria. As I pointed out in my last little note to you fellows, the criteria by which Meier's photos were judged to be authentic, by real scientists and experts (as opposed to members of a religious cult clinging desperately to their firmly defined beliefs) were rather extensive and specific. So, when Mr. Rees said he could duplicate Meier's photos and films it stood to reason that, at the very least, he would trouble himself to understand that criteria, otherwise we could simply say that any number of science fiction films could "duplicate the effect", couldn't we, Derek?
But what you don't see here, and what is making your argument all the more painfully pathetic, is your aversion and avoidance of having your photos held to the same standard as Meier's, despite his having taken them nearly 30 years ago with a somewhat damaged camera. I mean what's the problem? The one-armed Mr. Meier took 1,200 photos and eight film segments and he didn't complain about the scrutiny of scientists and experts, why should you? Well, obviously you can't stand that light being shinned on your photos because they'll come up as hoaxed.
Aren't you guys even a wee bit embarrassed to be complaining about being held to a scientific standard? So, since you've been kind enough to post my letter pointing out the protocols of the scientific method, why are you squirming when it comes to applying them? Could it be that, as I also pointed out, you're not scientists, you're...skeptics?
Now, if I was only in possession of those 30-year old negatives you could be sure that I'd rush 'em right over to you guys for your examination. What a funny thought just occurred to me! Just what are your qualifications to examine film negatives, especially in light of your aversion to have your own photos examined by qualified scientists? Derek, do you think I'm being a little too hard on you guys? I mean I send you info on top level scientists, I offer to send you the 23-page photo analysis document and you guys don't even mention any of it! You know, they call that being non-responsive. Do you think it's all going to go away if you just close your eyes?
Have you gotten too used to debunking little old ladies who see ghosts in their attics?
About the metal alloy segments, Derek. Marcel Vogel was a scientist with IBM who, at the time he examined the metal samples with an electron-scanning microscope, also held 32 patents. Derek, I don't know how many patents you hold but Mr. Vogel, well, was a real scientist. He videotaped his analysis of the metal alloy sample that the Plejaren gave to Meier for that purpose. Guess what, Derek? Mr. Vogel stated that, with any technology available to him as a scientist, he could not make the alloy. Among other things, it contained the earth element thulium, a very rare, expensive and difficult substance for a farmer to obtain, let alone combine in an irreproducible metallurgical sample.
Mr. Vogel is also on record as stating that a metallurgist friend of his, who also examined the sample, said that he didn't know how it could be put together.
Well, Derek, I'm sure that you and your buddies have some thulium lying around there that you can smush together with some lead or something and compare it with the sample shown in the video and claim you "duplicated the effect". Now you may wish to view that little commentary by Mr. Vogel, which just so happens to be on my new DVD! The DVD normally sells for $25, plus $4 shipping, but which you can get for only $25. That's right, while I'm trying like heck to get rich on this thing I still want to donate the $4 to your thulium fund in case you mess up the stuff you keep in desk when you put it in the microwave with the tin foil to produce the aforementioned "effect".
But wait, I forgot, if you didn't see it all first hand...it didn't happen! So, despite the fact that there was a six-year investigation of the case by people who were, surprise, actually qualified to do it, it doesn't count because you guys, who refuse to put your own work to the same test, didn't examine the evidence for yourselves. Wow.
Now another little detail that you've twisted. Regarding refusing to offer you ANY evidence for testing?
I have to say au contraire mon ami! Could it be any clearer? I said that the sound recording, which is indeed physical evidence, is available to you free of charge at my website, go download it. And the remarkable, broad daylight video...it's on the DVD, as well as at the www.figu.org/us site where it's free again! And let's not forget the film that Mr. Rees said he could easily duplicate with the two lights pulsing on and off.
Getting back to the "non-responsive" thing, Derek, I also mentioned James Deardorff's photo analysis and I also mentioned the rather substantial body of prophetically accurate information that, since it's in documents and books which were published before the events occurred, constitutes legal and scientific proof. I also demanded of you proof to back up your accusations against Meier but you also haven't, as indicated, responded to any of that either. I'm not letting you off the hook on any of it.
Look, you fellows are doing a heck of a job of treading water, and I don't blame you for flailing around like guys who are about to have pay $5,000 to a man who already has a Swiss bank account (well, he is Swiss). And, thanks to me and my big mouth, people all over the world are hearing about you and Mr. "Amazing" (talk about a guy who's gonna have to write a BIG check!) You see, because of this brilliant, though inexplicably delayed, little attempt of yours with the photos more people are learning about the Meier case and the transparent, insubstantial charade being conducted by your little group of poseurs and pseudo-scientists.
So, please continue to do your part. Post our correspondence, keep avoiding dealing with scientific criteria, standards and expert evaluations. Don't subject your photos for analysis, don't try to duplicate the film, the video, sound recordings or metal alloys. Don't back up your slander, don't quote me accurately, don't send in your prophecies and, for heaven's sake, don't admit that you've had your butts kicked by a one-armed man, without technology, accomplices or financial backing, a man who's obviously either an above genius, master level photographer, film maker, videographer, special effects expert, digital effects expert, sound engineer, metallurgist, physicist, astronomer, geographer, historian, seismologist, hyper-space propulsion expert, clairvoyant and mass hypnotist or...a genuine contactee.
Hey, what's it like to be caught between a rock and a hard place with a bunch of people who have neither scientific expertise nor common sense?
Hang in there, I'm gonna make you guys...famoooooose!
All the best,
Michael Horn
Authorized American Media Representative
The Billy Meier Contacts
www.theyfly.com
P.S. Regarding my being the "self-described" AAMR, actually, that's my contractually defined relationship with/to the case.
(The below emails are from the brilliant Professor Emeritus James W. Deardorff, interspersed with a terse reply from the Skeptics.)
2/24/2004
Dear Info,
I looked at your website file http//www.iigwest.com/horn.test.html but didn't see how your faked UFO photo relates to Meier's photo taken in 1975.
Using digital image techniques of 2003 hardly explains photos taken back before home computers were available, not to mention before programs like PhotoShop had been conceived.
And you might have tried, even digitally, to reproduce a tougher one, like what is shown in the last of seven thumbnail images at http//www.tjresearch.info/ufology.htm#Fuchs. The arbevida tree's foliage had a dense outer edge which made the digital masking technique simple.
Still, only techniques available in 1975 are admissable. Shame on Michael Horn if he allowed you to use modern digital techniques to attempt to reproduce what was shot on film back in 1975-76. Science would frown on that!
If you should have the courage to look into many other aspects of Meier's photos that indicate genuineness, along with explanations of why Korff's analysis was sheer bunkum, you could look into
http//www.tjresearch.info/ufology.htm
http//www.tjresearch.info/moretree.htm
http//www.tjresearch.info/bachtel.htm (shows the frame in which the beamship was at two different spots in "" from one spot to the other; also shows the craft partially eclipsed behind the knoll of the hill on which Meier was standing.)
http//www.tjresearch.info/hasenbol.htm
http//www.tjresearch.info/Wedcake.htm
http//www.tjresearch.info/BillyYes.htm
Jim Deardorff
(Fellow, AAAS)
3/4/04 -0800
Dear Mr. Deardorff
Thank you so much for taking the time to write to us.
This message contains our latest press release.
[Note from editor ... please see lead item]Sincerely,
Brian Hart
IIG Membership Chairman
Hello Brian Hart,
Your photo comparison may seem nice to the uninitiated, but it didn't give anything new, since it has been known for many years that a model can be suspended by thin nylon fish leader, and in a photo of it, with the camera focussed on the model, the suspension string will be invisible. E.g., Bill Moore did this years ago. To try to replicate the Meier photos, you need to have your camera focus set nearly to infinity (25 meters should replicate Meier's camera's setting of "one notch short of infinity"). Then check to see if your model is still in the same good focus as objects a similar distance away, as in Meier’s photos of beamships. Please make a revised version of your press release that lets the viewer understand this, and please include the links below in my previous email, so that viewers will understand that you did not attempt to replicate effects of Meier’s "tougher" scenes.
Jim Deardorff