Michael Horn's response to the Derek Bartholomaus and IIG on the Billy Meier case
Subject: False and defamatory post on Rense
Date: November 11, 2008 12:21:12 PM PST
To Rense.com and all concerned,
Regarding the claims in the PR posted here by Derek Bartholomaus and IIG that I "admitted to posting these false and misleading articles on his website in order to try and support the claims of Billy Meier," nothing could be further from the truth.
The actual, true facts of the matter are easily established, as they exist in an email record between Bartholomaus/IIG and me, which I'm glad to share. I should add that I had offered Mr. Bartholomaus numerous opportunities to gracefully retreat from his own erroneous - and unbelievably incompetent - claims against the Meier case and me. The actual history of CFI-West/IIG's failed attempts to debunk the Meier case go back almost eight years (see: http://theyfly.com/newsflash5/tree.htm)
To begin, Bartholomaus is apparently still smarting from several things, including his having to retract his foundational argument, as presented in The Silent Revolution of Truth (www.theyfly.com), that Meier used model trees and model UFOs to "hoax" his photo and film evidence. Here is the article:
Likewise, he was further humiliated that his attempts to get Uncharted Territory, the Academy Award-winning special effects company (Independence Day) to say that Meier used models as well. Unfortunately for Bartholomaus, UC's response included this death blow to his desperate efforts to salvage some credibility for himself:
"But, to reflect on the statement that's in the film, I also remember seeing a shot on the Super8 reel that showed a UFO circling around a fairly tall tree. According to that shot, we said that we can't conclusively say whether it's real or not, but it seemed impossible to stage that kind of a shot with a miniature (it would have to be hanging on a very tall crane, with wires - but even then the movements would be hard to achieve.) So, yes, in regards to that shot, we mentioned that we could definitely do it today with CG, but at the time these were supposedly shot - it would have been very hard, probably even impossible, to fake this kind of shot."
Further evidence of Meier's authenticity and scientifically accurate information, published decades in advance of "official" discovery (http://theyfly.com/newsflash94/UFO_Skeptics_Throw_in_the_Towel.htm) was obviously also too much for Bartholomaus - he complained to PRWeb that the article was somehow unfair to him and his organization, causing it to be withdrawn from their site...but not mine. (I guess I should have thanked Bartholomaus, as PRWeb gave me a free release in its place.)
Pertaining to the claims in the IIG PR, when one goes to the page where Bartholomaus/IIG claim my email indicts me for posting "false, misleading, or fraudulent articles" one sees that Bartholomaus deliberately deleted the entire body of the email, as:
Yes, thanks for taking the hook on that one too! Of course that's where you found it but...don't you remember my suggesting - several times - that you view the videotape of Vogel's analysis or that you read it in the Investigation Report, along with info about the other parties that also analyzed the metal? Hmmmm?
We left that one there but put the correct info, for all the world to see at http://theyfly.com/PDF/Scientific%20Experts.PDF where it's been for several years...including since when you agreed to do the interview.
And do note that I pointed you towards all of the material in the investigation, at least 1,300 pages, many, many times. But instead of actually investigating you copied and based your bravdo-cloaked presentation on only what I'd written in that one version of the information.
Now, since the actual video and written record of what Vogel actually did say has been widely available, just how brilliant are you, having done no real homework? This was also evident in your, now retracted, inane comments about "same trees equals model trees". It's also evident in your refusal to support your claims about a model in the film.
So, now when I put you on the hot seat, you go back to my site to find out where you picked up the incorrect info but, naturally, neglect to notice the right one. Now how on earth could I have known that you were just a pseudo-investigator and that you'd not do your own due diligence, that you wouldn't go to the source material itself?
Hey, could I be...psychic?
Further, in a personal meeting at a social event on October 11, 2008, Bartholomaus made six additional, specific, inaccurate claims against the Meier case...which I responded to the next day, with corrections, and concluded my email to him with:
"Respectfully, since the information you stated to me last night was inaccurate, as I demonstrate above, don't you also think that it's reasonable to request that you demonstrate the accuracy of your theories, some of which you may have also based on inaccuracies or misinterpretations of the facts?
I really and truly would like us to elevate this discussion, this search for truth, as it appears that Kal Korff and I may be able to also do (miracle of miracles). The truth will produce no losers in this matter, whatever it turns out to be."
Now, obviously these poor fellows are rather clueless, completely incapable of either admitting their errors or accepting some genuine good will in terms of searching for the truth. I have extended a friendly hand to them on a number of occasions but they seem quite determined to plunge ahead, with the highly inept Bartholomaus leading their already demolished charge. Of course, as far as helping further the exposure of the Meier case, Bartholomaus in his blundering is truly the gift that keeps on giving.
Obviously, I am more than willing to provide abundant documentation of the complete and unedited correspondence between me and Bartholomaus/IIG to anyone who's interested.
It should be obvious to any rational, logical, thinking person that the Meier UFO case, ongoing for over 66 years, is authentic. But the know-it-alls and skeptics have already made their minds up and have no interest in being inconvenienced by a nasty little thing called...the truth.
The real question here, however, is if this response sees the light of day on rense.com, which has consistently refused to post any positive Meier-related material for some time, or simply among the people to whom I send it.
As I say in the PR that caused such discomfort for Bartholomaus and IIG, "The fact is that while being exposed to the truth can be quite devastating for some people…it doesn't change the truth."
Authorized American Media Representative
The Billy Meier Contacts