Dialogue with a Skeptic
The following is the response
from Tom Quinn to the information presented in Will Humanity Wake UpÉin
Time?, interspersed with my comments to him.
Tom accepted this ÒassignmentÓ
enthusiastically, as can be seen. It should be noted that Tom is the author of What Do You Do with a Chocolate Jesus, and a
very bright, fun guy, who IÕve also interviewed on my radio
show.
Tom has, wittingly or
otherwise, helped to underscore what I perceive as a significant challenge in
presenting the Meier material to the world, i.e. he has shown the difficulty
that even very smart people have in critically Ð but objectively Ð researching
and examining the Meier material. And the world is not mostly made up of people
as smart as Tom, to put it bluntly.
Please note, when you get to
my Summary Evaluation, that we may all be ÒstudentsÓ and ÒprofessorsÓ at
various times in our lives.
MH
TQ: Dear Michael:
Well, you certainly gave me a lot of homework, but I
did look over the material you send, and did some digging besides. Much of it
IÕm familiar with, some of it was new, and all of it was very entertaining. I
think the best thing to do is to just lay out how I see this entire thing and
let that be my statement. YouÕll certainly know where IÕm coming from in the
event youÕd ever like to chat about this stuff on your show. It would be a
hoot. So, here goes.
MH: Dear Tom,
Thanks, IÕll insert my
comments following my initials, in bold to clearly separate them for the
reader.
TQ: First, letÕs see if have the story straight:
A race of aliens from a star system too young, hot and
unstable for life has come to Earth to warn us to stop destroying our planet
and ourselves.
MH: Not a good start scholarship wise! Aliens from
another star system is not the topic of discussion.
TQ: They have the psychic ability to see the future. One
of them was the real Jesus Christ (even though they are also involved with
2012, which has nothing to do with Christianity). And, rather than make
themselves obvious to the world so weÕd listen to them, theyÕve remained in
hiding and reveal themselves only through patterns of squished wheat, fuzzy
photos, and telepathic messages to a ranting writer who predicts every
imaginable calamity of man and natureÑbut who has been ignored because heÕs
been discredited by the CIA after they slipped phony UFO photos in with the
ÒrealÓ ones that proved his claims. Is that about right?
MH: Again, youÕre off
topic and, no, that isnÕt Òabout rightÓ. Being exact is a good idea when we
wish to critically examine something, no? To clarify a few things, which may or
may not make them more relevant, etc. in your perspective: Regarding seeing the
future, while the ÒhowÓ of the attainment of the information is not the issue here, one of the means is said to be
through technological/computer calculations. We already have various ÒprophetsÓ
with varying degrees of accuracy: weathermen, stock analysts, sports analysts,
engineers, astronomers, physicistsÉand many others.
They take known data and
crunch it, making projections of probable outcomes to varying degrees of
accuracy. Fortunately, those who also specialize in things like launching
rockets to distant planets, even designing conventional aircraft, mining,
building buildings, etc. do so with pretty high degrees of accuracy.
Next, Meier isnÕt really
Òone of themÓ (ÒaliensÓ) and there was no Jesus Christ, as we both agree. Meier
has only ever been Meier but yes, they speak of reincarnation of something
called the human spirit, as a fact of life. We simply donÕt know if this is
true or not, we have no way to prove or disprove it and, for now, itÕs not
important.
IÕm a little surprised at
this rather unfounded assumption pertaining to our listening to them if they
made themselves known to us. It wouldnÕt be hard to argue against the idea that
people are always willing to listen to strangers, let alone ones that would
come out of spaceships. But the point you missed is that your very assumption
about their not being ÒseenÓ indicates a rather narrow idea of what Òshowing
oneselfÓ, or giving evidence of oneÕs existence in this case, could be.
I detect here, and in this
first brief scan of the letter, that you have conflated things absolutely not
related to this specific article/compilation, and even to the overall case and
its evidence, perhaps out of prejudgment or prejudice. For instance, where did
you see anything pertaining to crop circles in the article I referred you to?
If itÕs not there, why have you inserted it?
As far as Òfuzzy photosÓ,
weÕre certainly not talking about MeierÕs, since theyÕre the absolutely
clearest evidence to dateÉand well tested as well. Since you brought them into
the discussion, did you not read the Photo Analysis? Naughty
fellow!
As far as a Òranting
writerÓ, where did you find rants in the article that I asked you to discuss? I
hope that you provide some substantiation for your statements and claims. But
even more I hope that you will have actually addressed the task at hand. So
far, I detect more about some beliefs that you hold than anything pertaining to the actual
information under discussion.
TQ: SoÉ weÕve got aliens, psychics, Jesus Christ, the
Mayan calendar, global warming, UFO photos, telepathy, and a CIA cover-upÑall
in the one big story. Wow. ItÕs kind of a tabloid disaster fest.
MH: Again, youÕre
completely off topic. And weÕve covered your (not exactly well presented)
comments on the first few items but IÕd have to ask, exactly what about the
comments on the Mayan calendar would you take issue with, that itÕs simply a
pretty good astronomical picture of what the sky will look like on a certain
date? More importantly, MeierÕs information about the cause of the extinction of the Mayan Ð published by him
in 1989 Ð was corroborated in 2003. ItÕs the corroboration of MeierÕs
previously published scientific information that is under discussion hereÉor is
supposed to be.
And is it really outside
the realm of possibility that the CIA just may have an interest in this
caseÉeven when we have the testimony of a respected military man and two
top-level (skeptical)
private investigators corroborating it? So, it may be a good idea when posing
questions toÉpose questions, or just come out and say, ÒI find this all to be
ridiculous for the following reasons.Ó In which case it would be prudent to
read in excess of 1,200 pages of investigative reporting on the case, spanning
eight years, just so you donÕt discredit your own argument by being ignorant of
some long established facts.
But the real question is,
will you ever get on topic?
TQ: Well, it wonÕt surprise you that for me, Billy MeierÕs
writing comes off as classic conspiracy theory stuff. It has all the
trademarks:
1)
The lone maverick with a
Truth that is being suppressed by the CIA, the media, NASA, the military,
andÉwell, you fill in the blank.
MH:
Off topic again. ItÕs not important how MeierÕs writing Òcomes offÓ? Is it
factually correct, did he publish it first, etc.? And where is the Òconspiracy
theory stuffÓ in the article under discussion?
TQ:
2)
The almost evidenceÑMeier was given a metal alloy that was made
by Òcold fusionÓ (a concept shown to be a hoax), but naturally, it mysteriously
disappeared so it canÕt be tested. OoooÉso close! Betty and Barney Hill were given an alien book in
their encounter, but the visitors took it back. Damn, if onlyÉ These bits of
alien tech routinely disappear after the whistle-blower gets a look at them.
MH:
IÕm beginning to think that you did everything but read the document I referred you to. I will answer
some of the erroneous statements, assumptions and claims that you make, since
youÕve provided so little actual response to the matter under discussion.
IÕm
wondering why you got this wrong too. To be clear, the metal samples were tested, most notably by Marcel Vogel at IBM. His videotaped analysis is still available and the summary of his
findings is freely posted on my
site. But not a word about this is anywhere in the document I referred you to.
Maybe youÕre spending too much time with the hapless guys at IIG, who have tripped all over themselves in
trying to attack the case. This has nothing to do with the Hill claims; why is
it even brought up here if not, most likely, as an unconscious response on your
part to try to attack the case?
Remember,
I pointed you to one document,
which IÕm sure youÕll get to at some point. But right nowÉI would have an
unfair advantage over you in a radio broadcast, or onstage debate, and IÕm not
looking for that, easy as you are making it here.
TQ:
3)
Mountains of hysterical
writings that predict every calamity that man and nature could produceÑa
virtual guarantee that plenty of it will come about.
MH: Inaccurate,
non-specific, and non-responsive to the matter at hand.
TQ:
4)
A lot of unremarkable
predictions that were hardly unique to MeierÑlike his 1987 prediction that
millions of new organisms would be found in the deep oceans.
MH:
Well at least here youÕre kind of citing something. But you left out an
interesting little detailÉlike how the contemporary scientific estimates match
so closely, numerically, with what Meier published a couple of decades ago.
Coincidence, one of a kind? WeÕll see.
TQ:
5)
Wild
mischaracterizations of cherry-picked events as evidence of prophecyÑlike the
tremor caused by the China dam. Sorry, but that one local event is not proof
that there is an epidemic of earthquake activity caused by man. Not happening.
MH:
I think youÕve just cherry picked, and you may not have done a very wise thing
in doing so. WeÕll come back to this one too.
TQ:
6)
A laughable knowledge of
basic science. Earthquakes are caused by humans Òrobbing the earth of its life
energy?Ó Really? In what units is Òlife energyÓ measured? Who discovered life
energy? Newton? James Watt? What technology can detect this life energy? How
does this energy cause tectonic shifts? WhereÕs the data?
MH:
Well, letÕs see. I think that the information given to Meier, in 1976, said a
wee bit more than that, didnÕt it? DidnÕt it say that as a result of our
mining, extracting of petroleum, etc. that the Òearth collapses from withinÓ?
Now, apart from a little article written by Paul Siegal, a scientist at
Stanford University in the 1990s, titled something like Earthquakes Oil
Interact, in which he spelled out the same causal relationship, has it not
occurred to you, just on the basis of logic/physics/geology, that when natural
secretions of the earth that appear to act as a buffer or support for the
tectonic plates are emptied out, that this will imbalance and make it more
vulnerable to collapsing from within, to plate slippage or sudden, unsupported
movements that we call earthquakes?
If
such hasnÕt occurred to you, then maybe you should have designed the planet, or at the very
least explain how such obvious
causal relationships actually donÕt exist. So if the words Òlife energyÓ bother you, focus on the clear,
logical explanation of the obvious mechanical components.
TQ:
7)
A bail-out excuse for
missed predictions so you can never claim The Prophet got it wrong. Example:
Meier predicted World War III would take place in 2003, 2006, 2008, 2010 or
2011Ñbut he notes that these are ÒpropheciesÓ (which may or may not come true)
rather than ÒpredictionsÓ (which do
come true). Sorry, but if a statement may or may not come true, itÕs not a prophecyÑitÕs a guess. And by
labeling every bad call a mere Òprophecy,Ó youÕre not working with fair or
scientific standards. YouÕve built in an escape hatch.
MH:
There is a distinction made between the two, and I dare say that we also make
such distinctions, sometimes without the need for any credentials or Òspecial
powersÓ. It comes down, again to the laws of cause and effect, or the law of
the pendulum as I often refer to it. The WW III prophecy is, and always has
been, just that. The 9.0 earthquake that will hit off the Oregon coast, and the next big San Francisco
earthquake, are predictionsÉand there are more of both.
TQ:
8)
YouÕre trying to prove
an incredible claim (aliens visiting Earth) with an equally incredible claim
(psychic visions of the future). ItÕs like claiming you have proof that the
Loch Ness monster exists because an angel told you about it. A miracle explains
a miracle.
MH: Not at all. IÕm using
corroborated documentation, very little of which youÕve yet mentioned (and look
how far into this we are!). YouÕve mainly resorted to a form of cynicism and
ridicule, which is the least scientific approach I can think of. YouÕve also
misrepresented most of the information you were trying to discredit.
I will, from here, direct
you to my *Summary Evaluation of your comments that continue below, as well as
to your entire submission.
TQ: Most fascinating to me, however, is the
pseudo-science:
Ex: Man has lost his
magnetic sensitivity and animals are also losing it due industrial ravaging of
the earth.
Nowhere in classic literature
or history do great explorers talk about this skill. Columbus, Stanley and
Livingston, Magellan, Lewis and Clark, the Donner PartyÉ Somehow they all got
lost long well before industry interfered with our magnetic sensitivity. As for
animals losing this power, there is no doubt human technology can screw up
animal communicationÑlike the noise of ships drowning out whale songs. But
there is no proof that whales beach themselves due to magnetic disorientation,
and birds are not having any noticeable problem flying their usual migration
routes. Global warming may change their migrations, but human interference with
earthÕs magnetic field? Are you kidding? That field is created by the spinning
molten core of our planet. We couldnÕt fuck that up if we tried.
Ex: Darwin got his ideas
about evolution from Tibetan monks, who taught that men were descended from
apes.
Darwin specifically noted that man was not descended from apes; he taught that apes and man have
a common ancestor. And he didnÕt invent the idea of evolution; he figured out how evolution actually workedÑthrough natural selection.
Speculations about evolution were around at least 50 years before DarwinÕs
time. Tibetan monks didnÕt come up with that, nor did MeierÕs aliens. There are
documented places across South America where Darwin got each puzzle piece of
his theory, and wrote about it. All the parts were there for assembly back in
England. He also cited earlier works that suggested evolution but offer no
mechanism for how it worked. None of his citations are of Tibetans.
Ex: Earthquakes,
volcanoes, and tsunamis are on the rise due to human activity.
The experts keep count of this stuff and there has
been no dramatic increase earthquakes, volcanoes, or tsunamis since Meier
starting writing. We like to think
there is; it makes for good Òend of the worldÓ specials on Discovery network.
But there is no statistical increase in any of these phenomena, and even if
there were, none of them are caused by human activity. Sorry, but a quake that
Òsome believe might have been
stronger due to the worldÕs largest dam in ChinaÓ is not proof that seismic
catastrophes are the product of human industry. No credible scientist blames
any of the major quakes, volcanoes or tsunamis of recent history on human
activity.
Ex: The moon landing was
faked.
SighÉ
This one really wins the stupid award. First, if we faked it, the Russians had
both the technology and the motivation to expose thatÑand they still do. So
far, we havenÕt heard from them. Second, if it was faked, we still had to build and launch dozens of
giant, expensive rockets in front of thousands of spectatorsÑwhich is the most
costly part of the process. If youÕre going to do that, why not go all the way?
Further, I was an amateur radio freak as a kid and I could hear the astronauts
on their way to the moon on my radio. And amateurs around the world could
triangulate the direction of the signal from their various locationsÑwhich not
only proved it was coming from space but could determine how far they were from
Earth at any moment. And if you go to a good observatory tonight and look at
the moon, you can actually see the bottom half of the lunar landers sitting on
the surface.
Overall:
MeierÕs harrowing visions are in good company with The
Book of Revelation, Nostradamus,
Martin Luther, William Miller, Edgar Cayce, Jean Dixon, Hal Lindsey, Paul
Ehrlich and other pop prognosticators who were certain The End, or some series
of catastrophes, was coming soon to the planet near you. All were wrong. Their
fans now do what you are doingÑcherry-picking the stuff they can still salvage
ignoring or spinning the boo-boos.
The only parts of MeierÕs work I found truly
fascinating were the few instances where Meier got very specific, like when he
predicted in 1958 that the Soviet Union will dissolve before 1991 and that
America would got to war with Iraq and it would involve a father-son pair of
presidents. IÕd like to see a physical book, bound and printed before 1980 (a
book, not a report) with those exact predictions in it. That would be
interesting.
Until then, might I recommend a podcast on my website:
TRQuinn.com.
Click on Podcasts, then click
on the one entitled ÒEight Rules to Successful Prophecy.Ó YouÕll like it!
The Alien Problem:
For me, the overall problem with Meier is the idea of
alien visitation itself, never mind telepathy or psychic visions of the future.
The whole idea that a race of humanoid beings has been
visiting us for a least half a century, concealing their presence but still
making enough of an impression that we know they are here, works like most
legends. The evidence is always just over the hill, or just around the corner,
and known only to a fated few. The rest of us only get their stories, which could be dead accurate or entirely delusional.
The Bible works the same way with the same kind of incredible stories. The fact
that these aliens have the concerns and sensibilities of 1970s New Age
eco-activistsÑthe very kind of folks prone to believing in psychics and
supernatural powersÑseems to be no small coincidence.
HereÕs my problem. A distant planet with an alien
environment, biochemistry, and evolutionary history produced creatures that
look more like us than any of the life forms on Earth do (even though they
share our DNA and evolutionary history). They evolved to their present form at
the same brief moment in galactic history as we did (add or subtract a million
years and at least one us will look different). They arrived on our planet at just the right time when such ideas would have popular
credibility (the dawn of spaceflight). And they communicate using sacred
geometric symbols pressed into wheat fields at just the time when sacred geometry became popular with New
Age baby boomers (the 1970s). But they are also in league with the CIA (though
God knows why), or they are being thwarted by the CIA (which can apparently stifle the secret of their presence
better than the aliens can advertise it).
Further, I am unimpressed by these ÒadvancedÓ beings.
They act and think too much like us. Their technology is not all that advanced
(after all, one of their ships supposedly crashed, and now they canÕt get it away from the humans). Their
level of intelligence isnÕt that much greater than ours (would we bother to
teach ants to live in harmony with one another or fret about how cruel they are
to the Earth and each other?). They have to kidnap people to study them (as if
performing anal probes on a spaceship is going to elicit normal human behavior.
CouldnÕt they use the internet, watch TV, or just show up for a nice
conversation?) They seem to want to deliver a message, but they contact us
through midnight visits in the woods, cryptic symbols in remote fields, and
psychic revelations to people of no significance. (Just what does Meier do for
a living? He doesnÕt look very employable. And why didnÕt these future-seeing
aliens warn him about the Turkish bus that took off his arm? That would have been a useful prophecy.)
IÕm sorry Michael, but it all reads like a 50s version
of little green men who want us to take them to our leader. ItÕs a very thin
sandwich considering the enormity of what Meier is claiming to be true. It has
the same elusive flavor as Bible literalists trying to prove NoahÕs flood or
find where Eden was. I wish it were all true, and I spent much of youth
believing it was. It was because I kept learning about this stuff, and kept
seeing the same ÒmirageÓ process over and over (the closer you get, the more
the evidence fades), that I came to dismiss it. Proof of such an astounding
claim needs more than doomsday talk and fuzzy photos to be taken seriously.
Hope I havenÕt offended, but IÕm kind of in the
business of not mincing words. Anyway, itÕs all fun stuff to kick around, and I
think it all says interesting things about people and their natural desire for
leadership and wisdom and a vision of something better.
Thanks for indulging me!
Tom
From: Michael Horn [mailto:michael@theyfly.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 2:41 PM
To: thomas quinn
Subject: Idea
Hi Thom,
I trust that
all is going well since last we spoke.
I've got an
idea for you. I'd like you to go through this
article and then see if you have a credible skeptical argument
against the information being made available to Meier by extraterrestrials.
So that you
know, we have a lot - but not all - of the information in copyrighted, dated
books and documents, published well before "official discovery". By
that I mean anywhere from a few months to over 50 years before.
As much as I
agree with busting the illogical, choking religions, I also want to bust
through the idea that Meier hoaxed his evidence. Of course to do so would mean
that the Meier case really is the most important story in human history...and
that the guys at IIG are going to have some big headaches.
Let me know.
Best,
MH
It can be clearly seen that
the assignment pertained to the information contained in one specific article,
a compilation of numerous, verifiably corroborated scientific information
previously published by Mr. Meier, prior to the Òofficial discoveryÓ, or
occurrence of the facts specified. Unfortunately, the student went far a field
from the outset, revealing in the process not only a lack of understanding of
the assignment but immediately, i.e. from the very beginning, overlaying it
with his own belief system
about what could or couldnÕt be true
and also almost immediately ÒtabloidizingÓ the entire matter under discussion.
That was, as the above email
shows, not the assignment.
Further, the student set a
tone from the outset that was condescending, i.e. making sure to inform that he
found the matter ÒentertainingÓ, which is actually irrelevant to the discussion
and, considering how inadequate his responses and arguments were, something
that may well have been more of an indicator of his lack of understanding of
the task, and inability to perform it according to reasonable scientific and/or
academic standards.
Instead of using such
objective standards for addressing the material, and even though the professor
tacitly allowed a less than rigorous scientific approach by himself inviting a
Òcredible skeptical argumentÓ, the nature of skepticism itself being a belief
based school of thought, the student effectively presented no argument
or explanation for Mr. MeierÕs preemptive publication of the information but
rather only offered cynical dismissals of any and everything connected to Mr.
Meier. However, from the beginning, the student operated under his own expressed
belief system, whether consciously or not; his opening line was: ÒFirst, letÕs
see if I have the story straightÉÓ
Clearly he didnÕt.
There was no ÒstoryÓ under
discussion, only published, factual information and the assignment was to
present a credible argument
against it. Nowhere in the assignment, it must be emphasized, was there any mention of Jesus Christ, aliens, the CIA, or anything
to do with UFOs. As a matter of fact, the term UFO only appears four times in
the compilation under discussion and never is it connected to any of the
scientific information. Nothing whatsoever rests on UFOs. So how did the
student manage to drag all this Ð and more Ð into the discussion?
He tells us right in the
beginning:
ÒWell, you certainly gave me
a lot of homework, but I did look over the material you send, and did some
digging besides. Much of it IÕm familiar with, some of it was new, and all of
it was very entertaining.Ó
The pity may be that he
didnÕt do the ÒdiggingÓ in the voluminous documentation that was under
discussion. And, based on his performance, his inability to address the topic,
the Òlook overÓ of the material doesnÕt indicate any familiarity with it and
neither does the body of his own work reveal much more than that he was
consistently trying to fit the material to his beliefs. As previously
mentioned, this is consistent with a religious approach to information that is
outside of oneÕs belief systems.
LetÕs revisit some of the
specifics to which preliminary comments were made by me above. In the studentÕs
item 2) he states:
ÒThe almost evidenceÑMeier was given a metal alloy that was made
by Òcold fusionÓ (a concept shown to be a hoax), but naturally, it mysteriously
disappeared so it canÕt be tested. OoooÉso close! Betty and Barney Hill were given an alien book in
their encounter, but the visitors took it back. Damn, if onlyÉ These bits of
alien tech routinely disappear after the whistle-blower gets a look at them.Ó
Since the student himself
emphasizes ÒalmostÓ, further
commentary is called for here. Couple with the fact that the student didnÕt
trouble himself to obtain, or even inquire about, the video recording of Marcel
VogelÕs examination of the physical evidence, the use of the word almost only reinforces his clear prejudice and close
mindedness. He misrepresents the entire facts of the matter with every
following word.
Now, since the student
himself is the author of a book that relies heavily on Òalmost evidenceÓ, i.e. references to past historical
personages whose existence cannot be proven by the standards expressed and
implied by the author, his completely pervasive, condescending tone only
encapsulates his argument in an aura of amateurism and incompetence. Since the
student decided to bring the metal sample issue into the equation Ð though itÕs
nowhere to be found within the compilation under discussion Ð it is appropriate
to point out that, unlike the student in regards to his own book, Mr. MeierÕs
experiences have not only highly credible scientists like Marcel Vogel, and
defense industry astrophysicist David Froning, and NASA scientist Michael Malin
attesting to the credibility and authenticity of his evidence and information,
but also dozens of
eyewitnesses, including a now retired UN diplomat with
sufficiently detailed witness
accounts and the fact that some 17 of these witnesses took lie detector
tests attesting to the genuineness of Mr. MeierÕs experiences, etc., which they
all passed as 100%
truthful.
Indeed, this departure is
merely for the purpose of showing that the student has embarked on irrelevant
pathways of discussion for which he is also ill prepared. To cynically call
into question the fact that there is an audio-visual recording of the
analysis of the metal evidence, simply because the student was neither present
at the actual event nor is the evidence any longer available is to
discreditÉmost of accepted history and even science as we know it. The student
himself has to rely on the best available knowledge, for instance, as it
pertains to the stars and other heavenly bodies since he can actually see few
of them in detail himself (let alone hold them in his hands) and has to take
the word of others as to what they are composed of, etc.
But more to the point, all
that he and most of the world may take for granted as being historically
accurate is based on no longer available evidence. Yes, we can find the ruins
of a referred to ancient city but does that prove that someone named Aristotle
existed and lived there? Only if we take the writings ascribed to, and about,
him as factually correct. And who more than the student himself takes great
issue with the existence of Jesus Christ, whose reality is accepted by billions
of people? While that seemingly rhetorical question can be answered with ÒBilly
Meier and his associatesÓ, the point is that the palpable prejudice Ð and
absolutely appalling lack of knowledge about the facts that he would ridicule
instead of research Ð destroy any slight sense of objectivity or logic in
addressing this entire matter.
And should the student
actually wish to take issue with the validity of eyewitness accounts, which
would be destructive to his own book, it must be pointed out that what is
uniquely compelling in this matter is that the eyewitnesses (in the Meier case)
not only now surpass 100 in number but that so many of them were witness to
numerous, repeated events in broad daylight and that at least five of them also
captured the phenomena on film.
So let this diversion into
the specifics of the matter not under discussion simply illustrate how over oneÕs head the student is
by attempting to use that which he truly knows nothing about to bolster his
argumentÉwhile avoiding the matter at hand.
In his point number 3) above,
the student states:
ÒMountains of hysterical
writings that predict every calamity that man and nature could produceÑa
virtual guarantee that plenty of it will come about.Ó
Once again, of course, the
student fails to give any specific examples, especially of the Òhysterical
writingsÓ contained within the piece he was assigned to argue against.
Tellingly, the studentÕs own rhetoric is in itself a bit hysterical.
But when he tries to get
specific, in number 4), for which some credit is deserved:
ÒA lot of unremarkable
predictions that were hardly unique to MeierÑlike his 1987 prediction that
millions of new organisms would be found in the deep oceans.Ó
Éthe student displays
remarkably poor scholarship, even in light of how clearly the accurate
information is presented in both Mr. MeierÕs information:
Òsome 12,000,000 undiscovered types and kinds of living creaturesÓ
Éand in the scientific
report:
Ò10 million species in the seaÓ
The fact that there may, or
would, be millions or more of each of the types/species is not the coinciding factor, itÕs how closely the
estimates of the number of those types/species were. Seemingly, the student
chose to ignore the essence of the similarities in order to diminish Mr.
MeierÕs credibility, and only diminishes his own with his continued adjectival
use, solely employed to insert his own prejudices into the argument.
In points number 5) and 6),
the student states:
ÒWild mischaracterizations of
cherry-picked events as evidence of prophecyÑlike the tremor caused by the
China dam. Sorry, but that one local event is not proof that there is an
epidemic of earthquake activity caused by man. Not happening.Ó
ÒA laughable knowledge of
basic science. Earthquakes are caused by humans Òrobbing the earth of its life
energy?Ó Really? In what units is Òlife energyÓ measured? Who discovered life
energy? Newton? James Watt? What technology can detect this life energy? How
does this energy cause tectonic shifts? WhereÕs the data?Ó
Considering how many events
are referred to in the article, it appears that the student is the one who has
Òcherry-pickedÓ the ones he wishes to address, which is fine, though he tackles
so few of them and does so superficially at best.
However, he uses hyperbole,
Òan epidemic of earthquakes caused by manÓ, and asks, ÒWhereÕs the data?Ó, to
attempt to dismiss the now scientifically correlated causal connection, earlier
evidence for which I referred to above. Had the student reviewed, and commented
on, the specific information contained within the actual news stories about
earthquakes in the compilation, and in the article about sink holes also linked
from within the compilation, he may have been able to at least attempt to
present some argument against the causal corollary but he shows his inadequacy
in not only failing to do so but in his abrupt, unsubstantiated conclusion:
ÒNot happening.Ó
It must be pointed out that
no matter the studentÕs high intelligence, a certain indisputable lack of
intellectual honesty is pervasive. Such blatant affronts to logic and
objectivity as the attempted overlay of a skeptical context rather than a
scientific one, the implication that all items characterized in a tabloid
manner by the student are, therefore, exactly the superstitious, silly, stuff
that he makes them out to be, the condescending tone invoking the
ÒentertainmentÓ value, etc. are all indicative of an undisciplined, failed
thought process that substitutes haughtiness and ridicule for even the tiniest
bit of objectivity.
Again, in addition to
comments that were quickly inserted above at the first reading, in number 7)
the student states:
ÒA bail-out excuse for missed
predictions so you can never claim The Prophet got it wrong. Example: Meier
predicted World War III would take place in 2003, 2006, 2008, 2010 or 2011Ñbut
he notes that these are ÒpropheciesÓ (which may or may not come true) rather
than ÔpredictionsÕ (which do come
true). Sorry, but if a statement may or may not come true, itÕs not a prophecyÑitÕs a guess. And by
labeling every bad call a mere Ôprophecy,Õ youÕre not working with fair or
scientific standards. YouÕve built in an escape hatch.Ó
I would only add to my
original comments by saying that WW III is indeed only referred to as a prophecy
and not a prediction, as
the student again wrongly states. But I will certainly allow the studentÕs
dissatisfaction with the numerous dates provided and refrain from any comments
on the positive implications of none of those possible dates as having yet manifested.
However, I will point out that to state that Òif one does thus and so, then
this will occurÓ, is not a guess. It is effectively a prophecy, for it doesnÕt
say that such and such will occur with certainty but only if certain steps are taken, or missed. Of course we use
this type of warning in virtually all areas of life, even in the earliest
stages of parenting. Stating cause and effect is hardly a fault.
And when he says, ÒAnd by
labeling every bad call a mere Ôprophecy,Õ youÕre not working with fair or
scientific standards. YouÕve built in an escape hatch.Ó he once again oversteps
the issue, and his own credibility. Where is Òevery bad callÓ that he refers
to? Certainly by tasking the student with critiquing the article, a compilation
of many dozens of examples Mr. MeierÕs specific information, the student should
have delved into it in order to substantiate his generalizations. In fact, the
Meier material is unique because of its impeccable record of proven accuracy. And the student does
absolutely nothing to challenge Ð let alone refute Ð that record.
Seemingly dedicated to an
agenda that precluded not only any objective and intellectual honesty but even
a hint of scholarship, the student states the following in number 8):
ÒYouÕre trying to prove an
incredible claim (aliens visiting Earth) with an equally incredible claim
(psychic visions of the future). ItÕs like claiming you have proof that the
Loch Ness monster exists because an angel told you about it. A miracle explains
a miracle.Ó
A quick glance at the
original assignment reveals that there is nothing of the sort contained, or
even implied, in it. There is no mention of aliens, psychic visions, the Loch
Ness monster, angels or miracles anywhere in it.
Another huge problem for the
student is made evident again in his comment, i.e. he is attempting to
categorically dismiss the information because he has assumed that it must be connected to presumably ÒparanormalÓ claims. The
ÒhowÓ of the obtaining of the information is not at all the issue. That can be wrestled with, if needs
be, once there is a recognition of the factually correct nature of Mr. MeierÕs
information, or not, should that be the case. But it appears that the student
has squandered the opportunity to even begin that discussion, having pretty
well mangled the task at hand.
As I did not above, I wonÕt
go into the specifics of the four examples (Ex:) but to state that the student uses anecdotal,
non-specific statements in place of actual substantiated rebuttals, as none are
presented. I have also addressed some of his comments both in the body of the
text above and in this Evaluation.
In regards to:
ÒOverall:
MeierÕs harrowing visions are
in good company with The Book of Revelation, Nostradamus, Martin Luther, William Miller, Edgar
Cayce, Jean Dixon, Hal Lindsey, Paul Ehrlich and other pop prognosticators who
were certain The End, or some series of catastrophes, was coming soon to the
planet near you. All were wrong. Their fans now do what you are
doingÑcherry-picking the stuff they can still salvage ignoring or spinning the
boo-boos.Ó
ÒThe Alien Problem:
For me, the overall problem
with Meier is the idea of alien visitation itself, never mind telepathy or
psychic visions of the future.Ó
IÕm sure that anyone can now
easily understand how irrelevant and non-responsive to the task at hand these
two unrelated commentaries are. Like the previous ones, it doesnÕt apply to,
nor belong in, any reference or examination of the compilation under
discussion. And, of course, the so-called Ð but non-existent Ð Òboo-boosÓ,
solely imagined to exist by the student, are never substantiated factually.
Since the student himself
states, in his concluding comments:
ÒHope I havenÕt offended, but
IÕm kind of in the business of not mincing words. Anyway, itÕs all fun stuff to
kick around, and I think it all says interesting things about people and their
natural desire for leadership and wisdom and a vision of something better.
Thanks for indulging me!Ó
ÉI know that he will
appreciate my own directness as well. And it is therefore also appropriate to
show that pointing out his condescension, skeptical religiosity, prejudices,
intellectual dishonesty, lack of seriousness, etc. Ð and apparent inability to
attend to the specific task at hand Ð is the only honest response possible for
me.
Knowing that the student is
indeed a highly intelligent, capable person, while I am disappointed in his
performance, I donÕt preclude the possibility that he will be able to perform
such a task using objective, scientific and academically respectable methods of
thinking and examination of evidence. But to do so will most likely require
that he comes to terms with what is, effectively, a religious obstacle, that being the kind of belief based
thinking, which has its mind already made up beforehand, and that is typical of
the movement of skepticism to which he freely attaches himself.
He is always welcome, of
course, to resubmit a more sober, detailed, substantiated response, based on
the same quality of factual evidence and documentation as is contained within
the compilation.
In regards to the studentÕs
offer, in his opening paragraph:
ÒYouÕll certainly know where IÕm coming from in the event youÕd ever like to
chat about this stuff on your show. It would be a hoot. Ò
Since I have no desire to
humiliate him in such an interaction as he is demonstrably so ill prepared for,
I would graciously decline his offer, for now. I do think that making this
exchange available can serve as an example of the challenges inherent in
presenting thoroughly well documented information to highly intelligent people,
for whom the entire context lies well beyond their personal belief systems, and
thereby Ð despite even their conscious efforts Ð trumps the application of
their intellectual abilities.
Michael Horn
September 1, 2010