Talk:Billy Meier/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

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!!!

Queria que uma mulesinha das Plêiades viesse me fazer uma visita também... Ai mas não deve ser para o meu bico :(

This comment added with sig and time stamp to facilitate archiving. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:23, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

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)

I would like to see a picture of his 'wedding cake UFO' in the article. Anybody who sees it who has a basic visual literacy or any confidence in their own senses will have all the information they need. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.193.36.9 (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2014 (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

This comment added with signature and time stamp to facilitate archiving. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:21, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Billy Meier meeting Jesus Christ

82.40.232.210 (talk) 17:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC) From my research into the subject of Billy Meier which is extensive but by no means exhaustive Billy never claimed to have met Jesus Christ. He claims to have met a man called Jmmanuel who he claims existed at around the time of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ never existed according to Mr Meier. In fact Mr Meier states that Christianity is a corruption of the teachings of Jmmanuel. He also claims his human spirit is the same as that which incarnated as Jmmanuel and other prophets throughout many thousands of years in the past. If you would like a source then there are plenty at www.figu.org, us.figu.org, www.theyfly.com and my own website www.futureofmankind.co.uk. A good one might be http://us.figu.org/portal/BillyMeier/HisWork/ClarificationofaDefamatoryClaim/tabid/58/Default.aspx because it is from the USA website of Billy Meier's official organisation called FIGU. Does this qualify as relevant and substantial evidence towards the case of not including that section on Mr Meier meeting Jesus Christ (that I recently removed), please?

Jamesgtmoore (talk) 17:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC) I just want to say that 82.40.232.210 is me and I've now recovered my password. :)

[[[User:Davidacaruso|Davidacaruso]] (talk) 16:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC) 2008-09-02] The main point, which is obvious, is being dodged deliberately in the above discussion. Of course we know that Jmmanuel is the same person that others call Jesus. Meier said that the word "Christ" is an evil word, and that part of the mission of the Pleiadians (or Plejaren, if you like; we know to whom it refers) is to destroy organized religions like Christianity. This is a task that obviously Meier will fail at, since he is obviously a hoaxer. This sad truth comes to light when you consider the unabridged version of the Contact Dialogues which detail the conversation between Meier and the Jesus/Jmmanuel. Of course, such a dialogue is hard to stomach as remotely credible to most people, and so it was left out. But the dialogue does exist, and was transcribed, and is part of Meier's story, which is why I have added it to Wikipedia. Those wishing to know more about Meier will want to know this information; because it is important to know that Meier claims, mostly indirectly, but succinctly, that Meier is the incarnation of Jesus (i.e. Jmmanuel). Those who would defend Meier's credibility would bury this information. But then you are playing a misinformation game; you are hiding the truth, and you are hiding information put out by Meier, which I have in my library, because it was sent directly to me by Wendelle Stevens (who, like Dr. James Deardorff, unfortunately believe Meier's claim of not only having met Jesus but actually being the incarnation of him). If you want to know truth, then you will objectively evaluate this piece of information. But if you only want to maintain the fantasy world of Mr. Meier, then you will either deny or believe this information, full while knowing that for most people it will be impossible to stomach. And that is why the poster keeps removing it. Because it is damming, but true and relevant information about Mr. Meir.

The above link provides a clarification that Meier says he is not the incarnation of Jesus. But it states repeatedly that Meier is the "great prophet of the new age" and the true prophet for "the entire terrestrial world". And it states on a common-sense level that Meier is the reincarnation of Jesus with these words, quoted from Meier's book "Om":

"And the son of man shall be in torment for a long time, and he shall be reborn in many lives as prophet; and he shall begin his mission on Earth as Enoch and return another time as Elijah, then as Isaiah, whom he shall follow as Jeremiah and Jmmanuel and then as Mohammed. And he shall be the prophet of the New Age, when the time of times will be ripe, and when his name shall say that he is the guardian of the treasure ..."

There is a piece of paper, claimed to be ancient, provided to Stevens by Meier that shows a list of prophets, Jmmanuel among them, that ends with Meier. Common sense tells us that something is amiss when you consider Meier's actual standing in the world, the content and meaning of his work, and the lack of true evidence (evidence not tampered with so many times by the "Men in Black"). Meier's writings are obscure, even to those involved in UFO research. His talking about "worldwide enemies" is a joke when you consider the handful of people who are interested in his work. In reality he has no impact on this world and his writings are of no consequence, and his story of being the only person on Earth being contacted by the Pleidians who are apparantly very heavily influencing our world falls flat when you expand your thinking to include common sense reality. His writings will be of little consequence in the future; Meier is only one of many people who have such writings and books, who claim exclusive contacts with enlightened ETs, and who claim to be the saviors of mankind. It is a common story. But for some it so gripping on a psychological level that they voluntarily suspend reason and insert themselves into Meier's fantasy bubble, and claim those that stand up for truth are only cynical and actually the enemies of truth. Yes, debunkers get it wrong more often than not, and they are often heavily biased. But in the Meier case they are more right than wrong. The proof is in Meier's importance and standing in the world, which amounts to nothing. True "prophets" had /real/ consequence in their times. Meier is nothing but a brilliant liar, but a liar he is, unfortunately. For those caught in his mind-web, common sense has no place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidacaruso (talk • contribs) 17:09, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Jamesgtmoore (talk) 00:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC) David, thanks for your verbose point-of-view, I enjoyed reading it.

I thought that the whole point of Wikipedia is to simply write the known facts only and to stay neutral at all times? So you are of the opinion that Meier is a hoaxer this is quite clear but you are wrong to be so biased on an encyclopedia. Biased articles is not what Wikipedia is all about, you know this surely. Therefore the subject of whether or not he is a hoaxer should include both sides of the story, be balanced, neutral or not be included at all since this would lead readers to come to false conclusions.

Your obviously negatively-biased opinion of Meier's claims is also irrelevant to the objective of Wikipedia. What is relevant are the facts about this man called Eduard Albert Meier, also known as Billy. Full stop. Facts must also have references in the world of Wikipedia and the paragraph on Meier's meeting with Jesus has no reference since the referred to source states different facts than what is stated in the paragraph in this article. Therefore your statement was not a truthful fact.

The paragraph therefore states a lie and so it should be removed. I will prove how it is not stating truthful facts if you read on.

The MESSAGE 2 book (Message from the Pleiades The Contact Notes of Billy Meier Volume 2) of which I also have a copy, says that Meier met Immanuel but on the following pages the spelling used changes to Jmmanuel (poor editing of the book perhaps?). So lets use Jmmanuel as the correct spelling on the name from now on. A more recently published book called the Talmud of Jmmanuel which is endorsed by Meier also proves the correct spelling is with a J.

For proof of the above facts in the above paragraphs please see screenshot of the relevant page in the book here. You can clearly see that it does not refer to meeting a man called Jesus Christ as per your paragraph. Ok yes most people of this world are not familiar with the name Jmmanuel but even so the truth should be stated in this article. There are no ifs and buts here when talking about facts. You don't say to your wife or girlfriend, "Today I had a chat with my manager, Bob" when he is actually called Fred do you?! State the facts please.

The truth is also that Meier claims to have gone back in time and met some guy called Jmmanuel, not Jesus. I'm not saying that its a proven fact that Meier went back in time and met Jmmanuel. I said that he claims...

It must also be stated that in the preface of MESSAGE 2 which the paragraph uses as a reference is the following text: "As with the first MESSAGE book, which we never intended to write either, we continued our translation effort and completed more of the original translations with all the translation problems we had experienced with the first volume. Eduard "Billy" Meier has not approved this volume either, and has asked us to desist in our efforts as this was not intended for anybody but his small group of friends". So there we are a fact that tells us we cannot rely on that book to truthfully and accurately represent Meier's claims. Please see screenshot of the book's preface here.

As for your sentence on the man called Jischi who Billy punched, the facts are that the MESSAGE 2 book states on page 505 that the man called Jitschi (not Jischi as you wrote) was punched by Meier after repeated warnings for cursing as Jitschi lost his mind after going back in time and then was told he was about to meet Jmmanuel! In this context it would be understandable for an average man of Earth "lose ones marbles" during such a trip.

Regardless of Billy's physical attack on Jitschi (or you could say "attempt to bring Jitschi to his sense") afterwards, his companion, the ET woman Asket (allegedly of the Timar human race from the DAL Universe) said to Meier, "You have treated right." (bad translation from German to English obviously) to mean that he deserved it and then a bit later on after Jitschi had recovered from his "wake up call" Jitschi said to Asket, "Let him go, I am guilty myself. He only did what he had to do. It was all right so, for I had really turned mad, and his hit was a good medicine. He brought me to my senses again. All was too much for me. I just don't bear it. Please excuse and be not angry about me." Again it's obvious the translation leaves something to be desired here.

Furthermore even Jmmanuel said to Meier, "My words are no reproach. You have done right, he was in need of this pain. He lost control over his senses.". Now don't you agree that now this all sounds like reasonable correctional behaviour towards a man gone mad? Reasonable given the context of the situation? Is this now an accurate portrayel of some of the events surrounding Billy's visit to Jmmanuel (AKA the real Jesus)? In my opinion, yes it does.

For proof please see the most relevant 2 pages from the book where Jitschi "loses his marbles" page 1, page 2.

And on a personal level from one human to another; regarding your belief in reincarnation, or lack thereof, this is something you need to come to terms with yourself. I only ask you to reconsider how you evaluate an extraordinary claim such as the claims of Mr Meier for your own human spirit's evolutionary benefit. If you think that Jesus Christ's existence is possible and that the events depicted in the Book of Revelations (or indeed any religious book) are possible then logically you must also think that Mr Meier could be a reincarnation of the real Jesus Christ, called Jmmanuel, otherwise you are illogical yourself since both subjects are as fantastic as each other from the laymans/average-Joe's point of view. The ability to prove either case is nigh on impossible in material terms. In these fantastic cases one must use logical thinking to dismiss the impossible and let the possible remain to be possible even though it may not be so probable according to ones belief system.

Sorry I took so long to respond.

Kind Regards

James

This comment added with signature and time stamp to facilitate archiving. - - MrBill3 (talk) 09:27, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

POV

This article is ten times too long for a man whose only claim to fame is supposedly talking to aliens. It shoulds take no more than three small paragraphs at most to cover him. If no one can provide a a valid rationale I am going to pare this down.71.108.139.195 (talk) 23:37, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

I strongly disapprove. Encyclopedic relevance (which seems to be what you are talking about, not POV) isn't about what you or I think or how likely a claim is. It's about phenomena that occur. The rest is about how you describe them, not if.

So, if a phenomenon is widespread enough, it merits inclusion and at some length. And if you (or most sensible people you can think of) can't see any truth in it – for one thing you (and they) may still miss something; for another, the subject may still hold considerable ethnographical, historical, psychological or similar interest. Just as an article about Augustinus or Muhammed holds even to many of us who are not Christian or Moslem, respectively.

As for the UFO subject, it's both significant and controversial, as can be seen in other articles on it, and this man seems to be a figure of some importance in it. 79.102.42.199 (talk) 21:23, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Los metales

Nadie toma en cuenta, que el Sr. Meier, sometio a estudios cientificos, algunos metales, desconocidos en la tierra. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.1.23.170 (talk) 03:19, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Talmud Jmmanuel?

There apparently was an article about Talmud Jmmanuel, but it was deleted. It redirects to the Billy Meier article, which I don't appreciate at all as a researcher. And it is only mentioned in passing in this article, with one apparently-questionable citation. (I wish deleted articles would still be easily found – are they? – if one wanted to look at them.) Googling, I can't quickly find out information about this purported document. Questions like: Have scholars studied it? Is it ancient? If it is, should not an article about it be included, regardless of Billy Meier's supposed connection to it? Without an article, how can researchers easily determine its status as either a fake or a real document from antiquity? or a fake from antiquity? It seems like many Wikipedia editors are in the habit of deleting things that they find too incredible to believe. If an article has issues, fix it, but deleting it, if it's something notable – and such a find would be – is worse damage than having some articles around that aren't up to editor snuff. Maybe the snuff is the problem, LOL. Anyone know if I can still read a deleted article on Wikipedia, or if needed, elsewhere? Thanks! Misty MH (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Criticism

I don't have the time nor inclination to listen to the Exposing Pseudoscience podcasts provided in the external links section, but if these are able to be accepted as good and valid sources they should be used as inline citations within the main body of the article where appropriate. Laval (talk) 10:22, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

Primary sources

Maybe it's been mentioned before, but there is no reason for this article to be using any primary or self-published sources considering that it seems there are more than enough secondary and tertiary sources, both pro and con, that can be used. Referencing the "contact reports" and other works of Meier is totally unnecessary. Laval (talk) 10:27, 31 May 2015 (UTC) -I have removed the entire section.

One sided

This article is skewed toward an obvious hoaxer. There is plenty of evidence online that a large section of his photos were rip offs from other sources. http://www.billymeierufocase.com/dinosaurphotodeconstruction.html, http://www.billymeierufocase.com/asketdeconstruction.html. Also every photo has been reproduced http://www.billymeierufo.com/ All of this should be mentioned if the article is gong to be this long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.47.212.54 (talk) 22:52, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

From all the photographs in the websites above, there is one category of photographs that Billy Meier published which doesn't seem to be reproducible, and these are the ones where the UFO is actually partial hidden behind the tree. Here is an example of one of these photographs with the UFO behind the tree: http://www.tjresearch.info/fotolft.jpg or https://i.ytimg.com/vi/HQO3yUA5S3Y/maxresdefault.jpg. Still a big mystery! 104.234.242.16 (talk) 05:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Actually, those photos were among the easiest to debunk, according to multiple sources (one example here). Meier made or purchased model trees to photograph with his model "UFO"s. One example: In photos purportedly taken in different locations, and 6 years apart, the trees are identical -- and there are no trees of that size or shape at either site, nor any historical evidence that any such trees ever grew at those sites. When this was pointed out to the Meier followers, their explanation required substantial suspension of disbelief: The extraterrestrials made the trees disappear, and erased memories of them from the entire populations of both areas. Why they would leave the photographs (and memories of them) alone was never convincingly explained. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 14:19, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Wendell(e) C. Stevens

Stevens was a UFOlogist and Meier supporter. The "Metal samples" section should not be cited to such a WP:PROFRINGE source.- LuckyLouie (talk) 22:38, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Some proposed changes to make this page more Neutral

Last year this page was Neutral, showing boths aspects of Billy Meier Case. Currently it has been edited by extracting evidence in favor of the case and including a lot of evidence against him. So it has lost Neutrality. I think a controversy is very valuable, considering both sides. I uderstand it is difficult for some people to accept this case is real and it is good to keep the evidence that indicates this case is false. But it is also good idea to include evidence that indicates the case is real. I have been making scientific studies about the Case evidence, that has been opened for debate. I do not know why reference to my work was deleted a few months ago. I am a realiable source, and my work was peer reviewed by a scientist, Professor James Deardorff, and Matthew Wieczkiewicz, who worked as Engineer in the Space Shuttle program reviewed it. I am suggesting to include back information from Professor James Deardorff (RIP) and information about my investigations. Otherwise this page would be totally bias which is not what we want from Wikipedia.

Rhal zahi (talk) 01:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Mainstream appears to have a biased and hostile attitude towards the Billy Meier case. Although it's true that his claims are extraordinary, I think his evidence are being dismissed too readily by the critics who want to discredit him. They really go the long way to put him in a bad light. 104.234.242.16 (talk) 05:27, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

And your opinion is relevant to the article how? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

What makes you think engineers are qualified to judge the quality of evidence? --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Legitimate sources are being falsely attributed as being unreliable.

The following sources have been labelled as unreliable and self-published without merit. These sources neither claim the authenticity of the claims made by the person in topic, nor deny them. They simply state the scientific results of studies performed on the evidence available from the case. They do not promote 'UFO' as being real, but simply that the objects in the photographs were large objects photographs from a distance, which could have been models as well, as this possibility was never ruled out. The scientific and analysis reports are available in video and book format, signed by the individual scientists or analysts. These analysis took place without a doubt based on the following sources (including Television broadcasts from a well-known television network).

These sources include:

Kinder, Gary (1987-04-01). Light Years: An Investigation into the Extraterrestrial Experiences of Eduard Meier (First Edition edition ed.). New York, N.Y.: Atlantic Monthly Pr. ISBN 9780871131393.

The Billy Meier UFO Case-2 (1980-10-01), Billy Meier - Nippon TV UFO documentary (Japanese, 1980), retrieved 2017-04-03

Elders, Brit; Elders, Lee; Meier, Billy; Stevens, Wendelle (1987-03-01), Contact, retrieved 2017-04-03

Stevens, Wendelle; Elders, Lee (1988-01-01). UFO... Contact from the Pleiades, Volume 1. Phoenix, Ariz.: Genesis III Pub. ISBN 9780937850022. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.234.244.78 (talk • contribs)

Kinder's book praising Meier's photographs, a couple of sensational TV documentaries, and UFO kook Wendelle Stevens are clearly WP:PROFRINGE sources. - LuckyLouie (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Scientific analysis performed, documented and signed by independent researches including the US Navy, NASA Jet-Propulsion Laboratory and IBM Chemist Lab are reliable sources. These documents exist and are backed by their researchers. The documentaries were produced back in the 1980's and in lower quality video, which doesn't mean these reports aren't valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.234.244.78 (talk) 20:35, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

You're not listening. Gary Kinder's book has been widely criticized for selection bias and ignoring obvious contrary evidence. (One example is here.) And even Kinder was forced to admit that Meier confessed to carving a small model flying saucer which he used for "some" of his photos. Wendelle Stevens, as already noted above, was a UFOlogist and Meier supporter; his website and book are the farthest things from WP:RS. I have not seen the Japanese TV show, but TV documentaries rarely qualify as RS because they tend to play fast and loose with the facts, particularly where UFOs and similar subjects (Sasquatch, Nessie, ghosts, etc.) are concerned; they are not bound by the traditional rules of fact checking and reliable source citing. And please sign your posts. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 20:38, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, nevertheless the scientific analysis are present and signed by the individual scientists. These reports do not conclude the existence of exterrerstials, but simply that the object in the photograph is a large object photographed from a distance, how can these be denied? These analysis reports are signed by independent contractors and researchers and even from sources such as NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory and IBM. Are you denying that these analysis never took place? When evidence like actual scientific documents signed by the individual scientists are ignored or attributed as unreliable without merit, how can any new insight be gained. This article appears to be biased towards putting down any possible evidence and are replaced by self-published sources on the internet with analytic capacities much less credible than the institutions mentioned above. 104.234.244.78 (talk) 20:49, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Let's take a step back for a moment. From your edits to the article, one might conclude that you're not familiar with the encyclopedia's editorial policies. I would urge you to read WP:FRINGE, particularly WP:FRIND. A cable TV show might produce a program, or a UFOlogist might publish a book, claiming NASA or IBM concluded something, and that conclusion somehow supported a fringe claim. But Wikipedia requires a source that's independent of the fringe claims. In addition, the encyclopedia is WP:NOTNEUTRAL, in the sense that we don't give equal weight to fringe vs. mainstream views. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:09, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the information, I see how this topic can be sensitive and fringe, of course as we cannot confirm the existence of extraterrestrials. Mainstream definitely has not accepted this as reality. But if in one of the books mentioned above, there is a scientific report which can be cross-referenced with several other sources, signed by known institutions (NASA/IBM, etc) and contractors and also filmed while they gave their conclusions, shouldn't the facts be made known? These do not support a fringe theory, but simply that the object is a large object photographed from distance, no one is forced to accept that it is a 'real UFO'. 104.234.244.78 (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

If the "scientific report" you're referring to is Vogel's analysis of the "extraterrestrial" metal, it was not "signed off" by IBM -- he was an IBM employee, but there is no indication that he did his analysis under IBM's auspices. As to the analysis, there was no peer review, and since the sample conveniently disappeared after he analyzed it, it is unlikely that any will be forthcoming; and an independent group reported that his findings did not necessarily demonstrate what he said they demonstrated, as reported in the article. We've already explained that the "books mentioned above" do not constitute WP:RS. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 22:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Also I should add that the mainstream view according to our reliable sources is that Meier's spaceship photos were most likely created using models. The viewpoint that the photos showed full spaceship-sized objects is unquestionably a fringe theory. - LuckyLouie (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

I can understand that Wikipedia is bound to only publish what is known by Mainstream media and that's fair, in the event that it may unintentionally provide inconclusive evidence. But in your conclusion that sources such as the independent investigations group are more reliable than actual contractors and employees of known institutions who use sound scientific methods, then that's unfortunate and a real bias in the journalism of this article in my opinion. But so be it I guess, we will see in a couple of decades whether these mainstream view points change :-) 104.234.244.78 (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Analysis showing that the objects in the photographs are large objects photographed from a distance do not conclude that it is a real 'space-ship'. It could be a large model photographed from a distance. 104.234.244.78 (talk) 22:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and I understand why UFOlogists argue that such a large model could not be created, transported and suspended by a one-armed man working by himself. However the issue is entirely moot, since we don't have any reliable independent sources that say Meier's photos are of large objects seen at a distance. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Furthermore, sources we do have point out that a truly reliable photo analysis is impossible without examination of the original negatives, which the Meier people have conveniently "misplaced". DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 13:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Rewrite using independent sources

IMO, the article body badly needs a rewrite using independent sources to better comply with WP:FRINGE. For example, UFOlogist and Meier proponent Wendelle Stevens shouldn't be the source for anything, especially long breathless sections of fringe views regarding metal samples and sound recordings. The same goes for Meier fans Gary Kinder and Marcel Vogel (whose own article could do with some cleanup). Rather than a tabloid POV that focuses on presenting pro and con views regarding Meier's fantastic claims, photos and other "evidence", we would do well to adopt the more objective view reflected in high quality academic sources that take into account the religious and social aspects of Meier's beliefs and those of his followers.

• James R. Lewis (2002). The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions. Prometheus Books, Publishers. pp. 653–. ISBN 978-1-61592-738-8.
• Paul Kurtz. Skepticism and Humanism: The New Paradigm. Transaction Publishers. pp. 57–. ISBN 978-1-4128-3411-7.
• Joe Nickell (29 September 2010). Camera Clues: A Handbook for Photographic Investigation. University Press of Kentucky. pp. 165–. ISBN 0-8131-3828-0.
• Kal K. Korff. Spaceships of the Pleiades: The Billy Meier Story. Prometheus Books, Publishers. pp. 195–. ISBN 978-1-61592-441-7.
• Catherine L. Albanese (1 December 2006). A Republic of Mind and Spirit: A Cultural History of American Metaphysical Religion. Yale University Press. pp. 502–. ISBN 0-300-13477-0.

Using higher quality sources also helps avoid the circular argumentation of SELFPUB proponent opinion followed by SELFPUB debunker opinion followed by SELFPUB proponent rebuttal, etc. Above are a few of the sources I've found so far that can support such needed rework. Feel free to add others that may be helpful. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:05, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I advocate simply pruning out any content based on such sources. That will shorten the article, which is good, as Meier is virtually unknown to the reality-based community. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

X Files Poster 'I want to Believe'

The original X Files Poster with a picture in Agent Mulder's Office of a U.F.O. was said to be one of Billies old U.F.O. pictures. The Show ran the original Poster as a Prop for 10 years but were then told Fox had been issued a Lawsuit regarding copyright of the picture. The X Files Show then altered the picture to avoid litigation. Johnwrd (talk) 04:07, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source that makes this claim? I know that was the conclusion of FIGU, but they wouldn't meet WP:RS. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:11, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Ufo

I live in Glasgow Scotland and would just like too share to the world that I seen something beautiful in the sky and believe me it has left me speechless xxx Padge19 (talk) 01:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

reversion of prophet "zarifou" (sp) in lede

[4] this diff. That source doesn't claim Billy is a reincarnation of Zarifou (sp) he's been adding it to his name (or something, it is unclear in the source). It also doesn't source the previous six prophets that Billy claims. The "TheyFly" blog is curated by his official English-speaking spokesperson. Self-published sources are reliable sources for self-made claims. The wording of the text puts the claim in his mouth, sourced from sites under his control. The book, makes a new claim, and doesn't cite anything else.

The book does look like a decent source to use for future article expansion. This article needs to explain how he is a religious cult leader of FIGU, not just a contactee with faked evidence. The book looks good for that, I'll try to acquire it. I'm not sure if it's publication actually makes it an RS, that has to be established. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I can understand why you'd want to cite a primary source - so you can clarify exactly what the claims are. This isn't always good though, since WP:FRINGE sources like "theyfly.com" are often packed full of argumentation and proponent viewpoints (which other editors may now feel they are free to include and cite). When it comes to fringe claims, I always prefer WP:FRIND independent sources; they provide arms-length analysis. I'm not that familiar with Kal Korff, but Prometheus Books has a pretty good scientific pedigree. Regarding Korff making a new claim, it could have been accurate at time of publication. Fringe blogs like "theyfly.com" often change information in response to critics. - LuckyLouie (talk) 18:30, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Introduction to article

The first sentence of the article states that "Eduard Albert Meier (born February 3, 1937), commonly nicknamed "Billy" is the founder of a UFO religion." That Billy Meier founded a UFO religion is entirely incorrect. The "Freie Interessengemeinschaft für Grenz- und Geisteswissenschaften und Ufologiestudien" (FIGU) is simply an organization of like-minded people. with the interest of studying the Meier material of their own free will. The organization is not based on the belief in any god or deity nor is the worship of a being of any kind promoted. The information disseminated by FIGU is freely given with no strings attached. It is up to the individual to either accept the information provided by FIGU as true and correct or not.

An overview of FIGU can be accessed in a free booklet, "FIGU in a Nutshell," at https://creationaltruth.org/Library/FIGU-Booklets/Small-Booklets — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinpigford (talk • contribs) 04:13, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

It is cited to high quality secondary sources, which we give weight to and rely on when building articles.- LuckyLouie (talk) 13:35, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

Is this what Wikipedia is supposed to be???

I must say that this page is a complete sham. First of all, where is the element of religion in FIGU? I have taken a good look at every definition of religion and found none. The acceptance of the existence of extraterrestrials does not define a person as a religious believer, neither does the study of writings from one particular source. There simply is not an element that permits the definition of FIGU as a religion! Next, there is this sentence “Meier has been widely characterized as a fraud by skeptics and ufologists”. As a reference to this, are given nothing more than cursory references to Meier. Glossary-type references, just to fill up the space and make this look like a real referenced article! Where is any real reference to how this conclusion was reached and by whom??? Where are the references to all the evidence supporting or weakening the case? They were here once, this was once an actual informative page before it was extensively stripped off content. It turns out that Wikipedia does not fulfill the role of presenting facts, unless we are talking of a real UFO religion like Raelism, for which extensive details are permitted. See the contradiction? FIGU, which does not define itself as a religion, is labeled as one, and the page of its founder is stripped off content because it’s “fringe”, while a self-declared UFO religion like Raelism is given ample space. It turns out that Wikipedia is not suitable for the neutral presentation of controversial facts! Raelism is given space because no attempts were ever made to legitimize the claims of its founder. If very extensive evidence is presented as it was and is the case with Meier, that’s too much for Wikipedia apparently. This page also completely fails to mention Meier’s role as an author. The German page is more balanced in this regard and mentions his extensive bibliography, but the fact that most of the books haven’t been translated to English yet is no excuse to completely omit this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGuerra (talk • contribs) 09:59, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

"Asket" and "Nera" photos

I don't know why there has been recent edit warring [5] regarding photos of purported extraterrestrial women "Asket" and "Nera". The WP:FRIND sources cited don't support that these photos were "manipulated by forces unknown", or that there is any question that they are not images of performers from the Dean Martin Show. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

The first source actually contains the following text at the bottom of the page "Although it cannot necessarily be proven that Meier faked his photos and films". What more would you need to accept the sentence "manipulated by forces unknown" is a reasonable and balanced one to have here? -Jamesgtmoore (talk) 15:24, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

"Manipulated by forces unknown" infers some supernatural intervention, so no, Wikipedia can't state that. Is there a remote possibility the photos are of aliens? Again, no, Wikipedia can't even hint that. Also, there's no real need to duplicate a discussion of the photos in both the "Alleged extraterrestrial contacts" section and the "Photographs and films" section. Let's pick one or the other. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

How about "manipulated by persons unknown" in the "Photographs and films" section?--Jamesgtmoore (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

There was no doubt that the images were from the Dean Martin Show. When this was proved, Meier changed his story and claimed that they weren't his original images and had been changed by the "Men In Black" to discredit him, despite the fact that he'd been selling a book with the fake images for 18 years. [6]Black Kite (talk) 19:37, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Well that explains the odd notion that they were "manipulated by forces unknown". - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Wendelle Stevens' books

--Jamesgtmoore (talk) 18:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC) Hi guys can you please restore the Wendelle Steven's paragraph that you deleted and use the following url as a reference? https://isbnsearch.org/isbn/9780960855827 Thanks!

• A quick overview of Stevens' "work" will tell you that he is not a reliable source. Black Kite (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
  • --Jamesgtmoore (talk) 19:10, 13 September 2020 (UTC) The same criticism could easily be said about some of the other already referenced authors. This page is quite negative towards Billy Meier. Please therefore add the Wendelle Stevens paragraph back in to give the page a more unbiased approach to the subject.

    That is a weird justification. "Please add an unreliable source to give more balance between sane and crazy." Please read WP:GEVAL. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

    • --Jamesgtmoore (talk) 21:35, 13 September 2020 (UTC)I was just pointing out how nonsensical his justification was. Are you guys on the payroll of the CIA or similar intelligence organization by any chance? Such great enthusiasm to keep a page about an alien contactee totally negatively biased against him is quite astonishing. It takes 4 guys to gang up against me to keep this page in the negative bias. That's another astonishing fact about this free but totally politically controlled encyclopedia. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-security-wikipedia/cia-fbi-computers-used-for-wikipedia-edits-idUSN1642896020070816

This has reached the point where WP:COMPETENCE and WP:NOTHERE applies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:13, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Taken up here. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:41, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

What gang is preventing the very necessary corrections to this article?

This page is completely slanted towards presenting Meier as a fake contactee and leader of a cult religion. It isn’t, or it shouldn’t be at least, in the spirit of Wikipedia to present articles in an opinionated form. That’s what happens here, through the selection of what is mentioned. This is a controversial case. It really is. Why present it as a “set” case in support of the allegations of its detractors? Why are those in support of the case not given a voice, not to speak of Meier himself? Why is Wikipedia shy of informing its readers about a case in which so much information is presented that it has a wiki of its own (futureofmankind.co.uk)? The answer seems to be bias, ignorance and prejudice. Very grave sins to be committed here, I would say. What is proclaimed as “high quality” sources are an absolute zero (even the detractors would agree with this), while the actual information from which the reader might be able to make up his/her mind is kept away as if it had the plague... — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGuerra (talk • contribs) 21:46, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE, WP:FALSEBALANCE and WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

"UFO Religion"

Re these kinds of edits claiming Meier's group is not a cult, not a religion, etc. On Wikipedia, we go by third party independent published sources. The higher quality the better. You could say we like academics and university presses the best. In this case, we have footnoted sources that unambiguously characterize Meier as a cult leader and FIGU as a UFO religion: "UFO Religion: Inside Flying Saucer Cults and Culture" by Gregory L. Reece..."Historical Dictionary of New Religious Movements" by George D. Chryssides..."The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions" by James R. Lewis, and even a couple more. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Please remove controversial content at the top of this page

"Meier has been widely characterized as a fraud by skeptics and ufologists, who suggest that he used models to hoax photos claimed to show alien spacecraft.[3][4][5][6] Meier's prophecies repeatedly blame Jews (whom he refers to as "gypsies") for future atrocities.[7]"

These two sentences do not belong in a Wikipedia biographic article. These statements belong on their respective author's Wikipedia pages. Pacman3211 (talk) 12:27, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

• The first part looks pretty well sourced to me. If reliable sources call someone a fraud or a hoaxer, we don't shy away from that (although we don't say it in Wikipedia's voice, i.e. "X is a fraud"). The second part has a reliable source, though I would expect a little more solid sourcing for it, to be honest. Black Kite (talk) 13:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Re the second sentence, here is the info I could find about the author: Edward Gugenberger, Born in 1956, studied history and ethnology at the University of Vienna, has been involved in research projects since 1984, e.g. on the subject of esotericism and right-wing extremism and has published numerous articles and books., so the author *may* be an RS we could attribute for that particular opinion if a translation of the source could be reviewed. However per WEIGHT, it is better briefly mentioned in the article body, rather than highlighted in the lead. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:10, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Sources to consider, re: FIGU a cult, Meier a cult leader

• Arthur Goldwag's Cults, Conspiracies, and Secret Societies refers to Meier's group as an example of "cults of personality".
• Meier is also mentioned in James R. Lewis' The Encyclopedia of Cults, Sects, and New Religions, although it doesn't specify if FIGU is a cult, sect, or new religion.
• A 1999 issue of Skeptical Inquirer refers to "UFO footage filmed by cult leader Billy Meier".
• Not a WP:FRIND source, but UFOlogist Stanton Freidman comments that Meier "continues to enjoy his cult leadership".

- LuckyLouie (talk) 18:32, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

BILLY MEIER - SITE CHANGES

 NOT DONE: as per below, and no reliable sources provided. Black Kite (talk) 13:13, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Email to Wikipeodia re: EDUARD (BILLY) MEIER -- Jan 24, 2022

I have been researching the Eduard Billy Meier Case in depth over a period of the last two years. I wish to inform you of the following facts regarding this Meier case, so that you can correct your information for your Web Page on him which, unfortunately and incorrectly, casts serious doubts on the legitimacy of Meier’s UFO experiences :-

Eduard Meier’s case was thoroughly investigated and authenticated by Lt. Col. Wendelle Stevens, who retired from the U.S. Air Force Air Technical Intelligence Center in 1963. Stevens was involved in in-depth investigation of UFO phenomena around the world, earning a reputation over 30 years at an international level as one of the top UFO investigators worldwide. Stevens was known for his scientific approach in hundreds of such cases. Stevens authenticated the Meier contact evidence in his books UFO Contact From The Pleiades – A Preliminary Investigation Report; and A Supplementary Investigation Report; Also his notes verifying this case can be found in the book, Message from the Pleiades that contains the Contact Notes evidence of Meier’s discussions with the Cosmonaut Semjase from The Pleiades; Stevens has also annotated the Photo-Journal UFO… Contact From the Pleiades, verifying Meier’s evidence. From my in-depth study of the above written material about this case which is in my possession, I also wish to inform you of the following information:-

On page 34 of the Photo-Journal UFO…Contact From The Pleiades there is a photograph taken on April 14, 1976 of a Swiss Fighter Plane making aerial combat manoevres around and against Pleiadian Cosmonaut Semjase’s Craft. Semjase eventually de-activated that Swiss Pilot’s weaponry system, and so he left the scene. Those particular photos of that event were put through laser and computer analysis, and were found to be genuine. Photographs of this analysis can be found in the book, UFO...Contact From The Pleiades.

Meier’s photographs of Semjase’s Space Craft have been found to be genuine, through computer analysis, as verified in The Movie, CONTACT, shown on You Tube — (The ‘Billy’ Eduard A. Meier Documentary of 1978). Meier’s contacts were also verified by Brit and Lee Elders and Thomas K. Welch of Intercep, an electronic counter-measure security firm. This last group worked as a research team with Meier and Stevens over a six year period, between 1976 and 1982.

From a detailed study of the material by Lt. Col. Wendelle C. Stevens, and the Elders and Welch Team of Intercep, it is evident that governments of a number of countries have investigated the 1970’s Meier interactions with the Pleiadian off-planet visitors, in depth.

As a result of government investigation, and after the publication of the Photo-journal of Meier’s experiences with the Pleiadians, UFO…Contact From The Pleiades, the British Government arranged a five-hour presentation of this material before the prestigious members of the House of Lords in London, England, on May 6, 1980, thus achieving a credible dimension of international acceptance. This outstanding event was followed by formal inquiries from other foreign countries for a qualitative exchange of this and other major UFO information and data. (For reference to this, see Elders, Welch and Stevens’ book, UFO – Contact From the Pleiades, Volume 1 (Genesis III Publishing, Munds Park, Ariz. Third Printing, Aug. 1991), page 71, in The Epilogue.

---

As a result of my above researched information, I suggest that the denigrating comments of Meier's ex-wife be completely removed from this site, as they are not accurate with regard to Meier's photographs of the space craft, and her comments are not accurate regarding the photograph of Asket herself. Asket's craft was seen by hundreds of witnesses at an Ashram in India, and Meier would have no reason to fake her photograph that he took of her, on his visit to the mothership in the 1970's. (Meier has been slandered by a number of sources).

The comments on this website concerning Meier's different reincarnations should also be removed, as they are inaccurate. Edgar Cayce has listed these same reincarnations as those of Jesus/Jmmanuel, and not of Eduard Meier.

Many attempts on Meier's life were made as a result of his experiences with the Pleiadians. His 35 visits and documented discussions with the Cosmonaut Pleiadian Semjase can be found in the book, Message From The Pleiades.

Over many years Meier also had the courage to arrange the translation from the Old Aramaic of the ancient 2,000 year old script, The Talmud of Jmmanuel, published by Wildflower Press, which is a true version of the life and teachings of Jesus/Jmmanuel, written by one of his disciples. These ancient scrolls were discovered by Meier in the 1960's.

Meier is to be congratulated for his bravery, instead of slandered. Wendy dutton (talk) 19:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

TL;DR.

If there is anything in this wall of text relevant for improving the article, please condense it in a new contribution only containing that part. Drop the chatting and the boasting and the personal-attacking, it does not belong here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:01, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

There is more than enough sources proving Meier committed hoax photography. You are clearly have a bias towards Meier and that does not belong here. 2603:7080:402:E394:1496:72E2:4FB7:34A4 (talk) 17:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2022

- Eduard Albert Meier, commonly nicknamed "Billy", is the founder of a UFO religion called the "Freie Interessengemeinschaft für Grenz- und Geisteswissenschaften und Ufologiestudien" (Free Community of Interests for the Border and Spiritual Sciences and Ufological Studies) and alleged contactee whose UFO photographs are claimed to show alien spacecraft. Meier claims to be in regular contact with extraterrestrial beings he calls the Plejaren.[

- Meier claims to be in regular contact with extraterrestrial beings he calls the Plejaren - - Freie Interessengemeinschaft für Grenz- und Geisteswissenschaften und Ufologiestudien" (Free Community of Interests for the Border and Spiritual Sciences and Ufological Studies)

Meier claims to be in regular contact with extraterrestrial beings he calls the Plejaren.[2] He also presented other material during the 1970s such as metal samples, sound recordings and film footage. Meier claims to be the seventh reincarnation after six prophets common to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: Enoch, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Immanuel (Jesus), and Mohammed.[3]

REMOVE THIS In 1997, Meier's ex-wife, Kalliope, told interviewers that his photos were of spaceship models he crafted with items like trash can lids, carpet tacks and other household objects,[19] and that the stories he told of his adventures with the aliens were similarly fictitious. She also said that photos of purported extraterrestrial women "Asket" and "Nera" were really photos of Michelle DellaFave and Susan Lund, members of the singing and dancing troupe The Golddiggers.[20] It was later confirmed that the women in the photographs were members of The Golddiggers performing on The Dean Martin Show.[2]

REASON: Billy Meier has only one arm, so he can't craft what his jealous ex-wife has said. She has also mental illness and falsified the facts by mixing extraterrestrials with Michelle DellaFave and Susan Lund. There is no photos of Extraterrestrials. JMetso7 (talk) 13:23, 7 July 2022 (UTC) - Eduard Albert Meier, commonly nicknamed "Billy", is the founder of anti-religion called the "Freie Interessengemeinschaft Universell" which means Free Community of Interests Universal.

- He is still in contact with extraterrestrials - FIGU is an acronym for the German words "Freie Interessengemeinschaft Universell" which means Free Community of Interests Universal. - Meier says he is in regular contact with extraterrestrial beings he calls the Plejaren.[2] He also presented other material during the 1970s such as metal samples, sound recordings, and film footage. Meier has said he is the seventh reincarnation after six prophets common to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam: Enoch, Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Immanuel (Jesus), and Mohammed.[3]

 Not done: No reliable sources were provided. Padgriffin ^{Griffin's Nest} 13:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2022

Please include the intensive independent study by image processing pioneer 'Jim Dilettoso' in conjunction with an expert from IBM. This analysis concluded the "objects" in the photos were LARGE approx 30ft+ size and at considerable distance from camera, and were NOT photographs of small models.

I understand this flies in the face of the uber conservative bulbous egos of the Wikipedia editors, who happily reference a skeptics OPINION, but choose to omit actual published scientific data because it gives credence to a controversial subject that they've spent their lives dismissively mocking. 172.197.14.248 (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 💜  melecie  talk - 03:47, 19 August 2022 (UTC)