Be Reasonable: Episode #009 – Michael Horn


This month on Be Reasonable we speak to American UFO researcher Michael Horn. Michael is one of the most vocal and prolific supporters of Billy Meier – the Swiss septuagenarian who claims to have been visited by aliens regularly throughout his life, and claims to have concrete evidence of their existence.

Play
  1. #1 by Tracy M on September 30, 2013 - 19:51

    Good show. I’ve heard people talk about Michael Horn, but this was the first time I’ve heard him speak.

    His passion for the subject is admirable, however his interpretation on what constitutes proof is bit off. Proof in a legal situation is a bit more squishy than what constitutes proof in science. It is also short sighted to use testimony from one expert as the final word on a subject. Peer review requires many scientists with the qualifications pertinent to the subject matter, to develop a consensus. You can always find someone to agree with your hypothesis, but one person’s expert opinion is not conclusive proof.

  2. #2 by Lee M on October 1, 2013 - 09:35

    Defiantly an intresting and fascinating person to listen to.
    A lot of it concerning prophecy seems to be retro fitting would be facts to fit after the fact.
    Great job Hayley and Michael I am beginning to understand and appreciate your type of approach.
    These people are amazing to listen to and I would love to grab a beer with this guy, I could listen to him for hours.

  3. #3 by James Moore on October 1, 2013 - 20:06

    How many scientists are required for a peer review to be accepted by the scientific community and what constitutes a scientist qualified to participate in a peer review of Ufological-related evidence, be it the photographic, video, metal alloy, scientific preknowledge, eye witness, lasered-hole-in-tree and 6-fingered-acidic-sweaty-alien-hand-print-on-car-bonnet type of evidence? Thanks.

  4. #4 by Malcolm on October 2, 2013 - 09:48

    The Wikipedia page on Meier is strikingly uncritical. It reads more like an article from Conservipedia than Wikipedia.

    Take this example:

    “In 1978, the photographs, films, sound recordings and Meier himself were the subject of six years of investigation by Lt Col Wendelle Stevens (ret.) and an American team of analytic experts…”

    The appeal to authority and science babble phrases like “analytical experts” certainly set off my BS alarm.

    Oh and it was recently edited, around about the time this episode was released.

  5. #5 by Mark Ottow on October 2, 2013 - 16:48

    That was kind of painful. I’m left with the overwhelming sense that if one asked Mr. Horn for directions to, say, the local pub; he’d gish gallop off on a seemingly endless monologue about not-proofs and prophecies without once mentioning that it’s around the corner and two blocks down.

  6. #6 by Tracy M on October 3, 2013 - 16:42

    An 3D image Expert in Columbia who is in hiding ? There are hundreds of experts, the more you can get the better. I’m sure a majority of them don’t have to live in hiding from alleged death threats.

    A judge is not an expert in what constitutes scientific evidence.

    There have been publications about the possible effect of the increase of certain atmospheric gasses going back to the 1800s. The first publications showing that increases in CO2 were contributing to global warming were published in the 1930s. So prophesy in the 1950s would be a retro-diction.

    Abio-genesis of oil is an old theory. The recent report showing some trace amounts of petroleum being found in ocean mantle samples also showed that is was not in sufficient quantities to account for oil deposits… which are all located in the earths crust, well above the mantle. They are not found at tectonic plate interfaces. Any seismic activity related to oil, mineral or gas extraction have been very localized and show to be shallow origin earthquakes. Sinkholes are a known phenomenon that have been occurring long before humans. There may be some related to resource extraction, but most are related to limestone substrate being dissolved away. Once enough material has been dissolved, the surface of the cave collapses.

    A chemist at IBM is not an expert for studying metal alloys., that would be the area for a metallurgist.

    In science, you do not start with a conclusion and seek out evidence to support that conclusion. It is easy to cherry pick information to support any notion. In science you develop a hypothesis and develop experiments to disprove your hypothesis. If your hypothesis survives the testing, then it goes to publication in peer reviewed journals and is subject to scrutiny by those in pertinent fields of study. If holes in the testing are discovered, it is incumbent on the authors of the study to defend their work or go back and revise experiments to eliminate any shortfalls. The next stage is replication by independent researchers. If the results are reproducible and again pass the peer review process, then your hypothesis has some legs to stand on. That would be the level of proof required for science. That level of proof has not been achieved. No one gets a free pass.

    I think most skeptics would love it, if we were being visited by ETs.

  7. #7 by Nathanael Mallow on October 4, 2013 - 01:54

    Whats true is true.

    I don’t need a scientist to tell me I am wearing shoes, how to walk, the color of my shirt, etc; because in these instances I am the scientists.

    Scientists must humble themselves before reality so that they can see and determine what is. If a scientist fails to do this then they become clouded by their own belief which is something that is not workable (beneficial).

    That is the beauty of the Meier case you don’t have to appeal to authority because it happens at the layman’s level of understanding and stretches far into the lower levels (atomic, sub-atomic, spiritual) of understanding. With something for everyone ūüôā

    If some one seeks the truth and seeks to really learn to think with the right questions then you’ll definitely want to look at the Meier material. For example Skeptic’s, often times like to bring up the picture of the dinosaur, for awhile I was having a hard time reconciling that along a logic line of truth because it’s striking similarity to a book cover. Then while reading further into the material I came across a conversation that Meier was having and he said that no one ever asked him if it was his. So it occurred to me to check the foundation where the information was coming from. I learned and was reminded that one should always check there sources in every ‘here-say’ discussion.

    There is a reason why Michael is the authorized representative this information there is a lot to say and most people are irresponsible in there thinking they go off with half cocked ideas of how the information exists.

    Most people are not looking for the truth but rather have an epidemiological attitude of a self-validating belief system that uses an empiricist defense mechanisms and immunizing strategies across widely different domains of knowledge. In other words they look for others to vindicate and validate there belief systems.

    As to prove the point:
    “The ‘appeal to authority’ and science babble phrases like ‚Äúanalytical experts‚ÄĚ certainly set off my BS alarm.” – Is that what this was or a statement of fact?

  8. #8 by Ken on October 5, 2013 - 02:40

    Hello People,

    There’s something i would like to share, i discovered the billy meier information when i was 19 years old and i’m currenty 22.
    like any other human being living in the western world or the civilised ones so to speak, we all surf the internet and come across some interesting information, it is literally the only invention that lets use tap into the other minds of human beings like ourselves and different from ourselves to see exactly what their thinking or how they see the world and what they have to share. From a negative side we all know the internet is also an incredible tool to misguide information, spread virus, cyber attacts even amongs nations, spread rumors and lies and much more.

    Taking that into account, no one can tell you your truth it can only be created within yourself and by yourself using your own reasoning and rationality. Because anybody can create now days an attractive website with a BUNcH! of BS full of lies about this topic and that.. how do you even tell the difference between the truth and lies anymore nowdays? it very hard.

    With that said, the only way is to become an observer of your own reality and follow what resonate within you with you, whatever that might be because the universe gave us the freedom to create our own life wheter that be full of chaos

  9. #9 by Ken on October 5, 2013 - 03:24

    or full of love and peace.

    if you come across the meier information and it doesn’t resonate with you that is ok and perfectly fine and you can continue to create your ambitions and dreams in life.

    If it does, and you dare to pick up on the information that Billy Meier has to share with his fellow human neighbors since it is not about any color or gender, strictly for the greater good of humanity as a whole. If you approach the information as simply as a observer and simply not swallowing the words like some of my family members down at the church.

    It can ultimately change your whole psyche into a garden of peace and a stream of happiness, joy and inner peace. All the questions that i ever had during these current young years of my existence were answered through his information, like the origin of the human species, the different races living here, the origin of nature, our universe, why is there such a thing called “life” and what is the point of it. and fundamentally why does the Human exist on this planet. it’s all answered for humanity and much more.

    No one can bring you to the meier information because it would be a breach of your freedom and free will, I have only come to certain conclusions and understanding through my own thinking and reasoning without the help of no other human being including Billy.

    To conclude, I experienced the loss of my little brother in september 2012 through a car accident, i was able to cope with my grief only through my own understanding and acceptance of the teaching of life shared by Billy Meier, and here’s a glimpse of i gathered as knowledge which ultimately became wisdom at such a young age.

    I learnt that the only material matter inside our brain animating our human body is our spirit which is a piece of creation(which is responsible for all creation of universes and life forms of all kinds and the spiritual realms) through that our spirit gathers all information we have absorbed and all body movements and feelings we have experienced during our life time as knowledge, and it does this through birth cycles called re-incarnation. when the human dies, in this case my brother yes he’s body has perished because it is material like any other living life forms wether it be plant or animal life,but the minute my brother had no more brain activity right about that second the spirit instantly like a flash crosses over to the other realm and rest peacefully and has time to digest the information it has learned through his last human incarnation. the spirit spends about 114 years(i could be wrong, i think its between 104 & 120 look it up! lol) in the other realm in our own human understanding because there is no space and time there, and the situation on earth is different spiritually due to overpopulation those sleep cycles for our earth human spirit don’t even reach 100years anymore only up to 70years.

    Throught that understanding,

  10. #10 by Ken on October 5, 2013 - 03:40

    I accepted that i will never be able to be in contact with him again physically but that his spirit in his body(and we all have our own individual spirit within ourselves and on their evolutive path and on different re-incarnation cycles and we are not all just one big spirit living through all humans simultaneously like the buddhist say)..that his spirit gathered enough positive experiences and knowledge throught his current lifetime that will help his spirit evolution for its next human re-incarnation)

    There so much more to know, DO NOT BELIEVE a word Michael Horn has said but find out for yourselves, if i am currently a 22 year old normal thinking human being who has come to this discovery and understanding i think anybody can and especially i come from an african background so imagine all the traditions and belief and veils i had within myself and world views but i was really blind from withing.

    I hope this will help somebody who is on their own path to the truth. Peace

    Ken. (nibiken@hotmail.com)

  11. #11 by Michael Horn on October 6, 2013 - 19:00

    First, hello to everyone here and I again want to thank Michael and Hayley (as I recently did on my blog) for having me as a guest on their show.

    Some replies to your comments below. It’s not important if an expert is living in Colombia anonymously; let the scientific method be applied, i.e. let other experts perform the same testing and analysis on the evidence and compare the results. That laos includes building the scale models, using the spheres, etc.

    Regarding a judge not being an expert on scientific evidence, the issue was solely the copyright establishing the date of publication of that evidence. Judges are certainly not experts on all sorts of evidence that is presented in court, that’s why there are various expert witnesses, etc. However, copyrights are internationally respected as proof of first or prior publication, which the retired judge that I referred to was obviously well aware of.

    As far as gases in the atmosphere, it wasn’t just that. Meier preempted the “new discovery” by Lawrence Livermore laboratories regarding the damage to the ozone layer by A-bomb explions, atmospherice testing, etc. If that was just one thing, it could be considered a lucky guess‚Ķbut we now have some 150 of them, and there’s no retrodiction involved. The numerous copyrighted documents with the specific information are indeed legally ironclad.

    The best “peer review” would be from‚Ķordinary people (like all of us), who are Meier’s peers. Of course, since we don’t have any scientists who are reecognized experts in the (sometimes rightly marginalized) field of UFOlogy, it does, as it should, fall to us to reason, think, evaluate and also use‚Ķcommon sense in determiniing the truth. Real life doesn’t exist in some sort of online bubble. Meier was presenting UFO evidence as far back as 1964, well before PhotoShop, home computers,e tc.

    And here we are on a blog titled Be Reaosnable. When you have a preponderance of non self-contradictory informational evidence, a huge amount of which is indeed verifiably published before the so-called “official discovery”, even when you have some items that – years later – can be shown to have been discussed and/or published in sources absolutely unavailable to Meier at the time, a readonable person doesn’t try to dismiss everything because it is outside of their paradigm. They apply impartial, scientific scrutiny and the aforementioned common sense, such as is also part of any real life investigation, such as is done by detectives, who look for‚Ķmeans , motive and opportunity.

    It also must be emphazied that no one was starting out with a conclusion and then trying to get evidence, or experts, to support the conclusion. Two of the original investigators of the Meier case, Lee and Brit Elders (who are high level private investigators and experts in electronic counterespionage working for Fortune 500 companies, banks, etc.) were…skeptics in regards to the case in the beginning. that changed after the years of investigate work that they did.

    Now, a question worth pondering (perhaps over that beer or two, love to join you someday!), what would it mean to you/us if the Meier case is…true, real and authentic?

  12. #12 by Die Schwalbe on October 8, 2013 - 09:05

    Mirriam-Webster dictionary definition of the word – biography : the story of a real person’s life written by someone other than that person.

    A biography may be a panegyric or a diatribe, or the life of a man may be used as only a frame on which to attach moral reflections. Its true aim, however, is to reveal the personal significance of those men who have played a distinguished part in the world, either by action or by thought. History has reference to the development of principles, biography to that of character. To observe the growth of a nation or of any institution from the idea on which it was grounded, through its vicissitudes and conflicts, is the part of history. To trace a human life, to remark the manifold efforts, defeats, triumphs, perplexities, attainments, sorrows and joys which fill the space between the cradle and the grave is the province of biography.

    — The Encyclopedia Americana (1920)/Biography

  13. #13 by Rhal Zahi on October 10, 2013 - 14:09

    About your episode:

    “Be Reasonable: Episode #009 ‚Äď Michael Horn”

    I heard this Episode, and I noticed you were talking about me. I conducted and investigation about a UFO photographed by Billy Meier, and I guess Michael Horn sent you a copy of the paper of this investigation. You were wondering if I am who Michael says I am.

    I am willing to talk (or write) with you, send you more information about my studies, my background, and about myself, like my real name, what I do, etc. I preffer to be anonimous to the public, specially in Colombia, but it does not mean you can not know me better.

    Also I would like to congratulate you. You seems to me you are located in the right point of being skeptic and, at the same time, open to listen new ideas no matter you do not share them. It was a great conversation with Michael.

    Rhal

  14. #14 by Susan Gerbic on October 15, 2013 - 02:28

    Not sure if you are aware of this investigation, but he is a member of the IIG. And ripped the metal sample issue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnweAd7Z-3g&list=PL8MfjLNsf_mj5ab6D71fUDOcmaDlcw-xG&index=23

  15. #15 by Alex Murdoch on October 16, 2013 - 15:43

    What an interesting and frustrating interview to listen to. So many appeals to authority and other logical fallacies it made my head spin. It was a Gish Gallop writ large. It would be interesting to go back through and note all the “evidence” that Michael Horn brings up and take the time to address each one, unfortunately, I don’t have the stomach for it.

  16. #16 by Michael Horn on October 17, 2013 - 22:08

    Alex, it would require more than “stomach”, it would require logical, objective research and examination of the evidence, such as the copyrights that support Meier’s prophetically accurate information, the professional analysis that authenticated his UFO evidence, etc.

    And please, floating the “appeals to authority and other logical fallacies” line is beyond silly. Skeptics try to claim that there’s no real scientific evidence to support such “extraordinary claims”. So when real, credible, experts and scientists do just that, out comes the refutation of it. Logical fallacies? Try evaluating that illogical skeptical position.

    There are clear, scientific mechanisms, legal standards, etc., that make “skepticism” a useless and completely unnecessary position to identify oneself with.

    Isn’t science sufficient and doesn’t it supersede skeptical preconceptions and…beliefs? What standards of proof would you prefer?

    As for IIG, they’ve succeeded in helping to…corroborate Meier’s information:

    http://www.theyfly.com/skeptical-challenge/confirming-meier’s-jupiter-information-and-debunking-incorrect-debunkers-…-again

    …and they’ve also succeeded n diminishing their own credibility:

    http://theyfly.com/Skeptics_Caught.htm

    Also, American skeptic Stuart Robbins is having a rather terrible time regarding Meier’s evidence, so much so that he..well, here it is:

    http://theyflyblog.com/spineless-skeptic-still-cant-handle-the-truth/10/16/2013

  17. #17 by Malcolm on October 24, 2013 - 02:50

    “What’s true is true”

    Ok. What did I have for breakfast this morning? You don’t know do you? So though there is a true answer to that question you still need to ascertain what is true.

    Saying “what’s true is true” doesn’t get you any further along in any investigation.

    “I don‚Äôt need a scientist to tell me I am wearing shoes…because in these instances I am the scientists.”

    Sure but we aren’t talking about your shoes are we. We are talking about authenticating UFO photos and some astronomical claims. These are things that not everyone is able to do. I know I don’t have expertise in those areas and I am willing to bet that you don’t.

    But hey, congratulations on having the ability to tell if you are wearing shoes.

    “As to prove the point:
    “‚ÄúThe ‚Äėappeal to authority‚Äô and science babble phrases like ‚Äúanalytical experts‚ÄĚ certainly set off my BS alarm.‚ÄĚ ‚Äď Is that what this was or a statement of fact?”

    My comment was statement of personal opinion and no right minded person could possibly interpret it otherwise.

    I happen to think the Wikipedia article on Meier is rubbish. One of the reasons is that I dismiss the article is that it relies on lots of dubious appeals to authority.

    Ironically you used this comment to criticise me for being too deferential to authority.

    So it contrary to you claim my comment about the Meier wikipedia doesn’t prove your point at all, quite the opposite.

    “other words they look for others to vindicate and validate there belief systems”

    If I am interested in the history of Nova Scotia I am likely to read historians who have extensively researched and published on that subject. If I want to find out if I have a heritable disease that I could pass on to my off-spring I get a DNA test which is analysed by an experts.

    There is nothing wrong with seeking out expert opinion. Does this mean that experts are always right? No. That is why we seek the corroboration of as many experts as possible.

    Which is why the testimony of one anonymous expert in Columbia doesn’t convince me in the slightest.

    Criticising me for being interested in the opinions of experts is akin to criticising me for relying on the guy who writes the train timetable instead of using my innate sense of when the trains run.

    If you think Meier in telling the truth good for you. On assessing the evidence presented I think fraud neatly explains everything he has done.

    “the layman‚Äôs level of understanding and stretches far into the lower levels (atomic, sub-atomic, spiritual) of understanding. With something for everyone ”

    That statement means nothing at all.

  18. #18 by Michael Horn on October 24, 2013 - 22:51

    Malcolm,

    Of course we’re all free to have our opinions, which doesn’t make something true or false.

    Since you don’t provide even one sentence regarding your assessment of Meier’s evidence, it’s simply irrelevant.

    However, if you’d like to see what happens a skeptic actually does venture into those waters, with the same confidence that you exhibit, I suggest reading the information in, and linked from, these articles:

    http://theyflyblog.com/spineless-skeptic-still-cant-handle-the-truth/10/16/2013

    http://theyflyblog.com/credibility-commits-stuicide/10/24/2013

    It’s pretty clear that it’s the pseudo-scientific skeptics and their arguments that lack credibility.

  19. #19 by Simon S. on November 24, 2013 - 20:10

    This is worth a read/listen, from Stuart Robbins’ Exposing PseudoAstronomy Podcast.
    Episode 90: Investigation into Billy Meier’s Alleged Foreknowledge About Stuff About Jupiter and Saturn
    http://podcast.sjrdesign.net/shownotes_090.php

(will not be published)