Friday, October 17, 2014

The Crazz Files (Oct 15, 2014) - Interview with Michael Horn



"We Talk With Michael Horn About His Work Regarding The Incredible Billy Meier case. Michael Horn is the Authorized American Media Representative for the Billy Meier Contacts, which he has researched since 1979. Michael is the writer/producer/director of the award-winning new film, "And Did They Listen?", as well as the co-producer of the new documentary, "as the time fulfills", which presents an abundance of ironclad, prophetically accurate scientific evidence that irrefutably authenticates the Billy Meier case. He is the writer and co-producer of the award-winning feature length documentary, "The Silent Revolution of Truth", as well as the writer, producer and narrator of the DVD "The Meier Contacts - The Key To Our Future Survival"."

Listen: podOmatic
Download: mp3

Sunday, October 12, 2014

Should Billy Meier be awarded the $1,000,000 prize for "his" prediction on the death of 5,300 year old Ice man - Ötzi ? (Part 3/4)

(continued from Part 2/4)



In this third part, we shall discuss:
  1. ÖTZI'S HOME  
  2. AUSTRIA-ITALY BORDER DISPUTE
  3. AGE OF ÖTZI (at the time of his death)
  4. AGE OF ÖTZI'S CORPSE
1. ÖTZI'S HOME  :

The following verses are from the page 2539 of Semjase-Kontakt-Berichte Vol 13, as being provided in Michael Horn's article.

Ptaah:
572. The next thing will happen in the Ötztal Mountains in Austria, namely on the Similaun glacier..
Billy:
Fantastic. Do you also know what the man and his comrades wanted to do on the mountain, and who the man was, and where he came from?
Ptaah:
578. Certainly, I can give you precise information.
579. His name was Urk, and he belonged to the sib of the Suren (plural), to a tribal community which lived on pile-dwellings. This was in Switzerland and before the time when the Vikings were settling in Central Switzerland and the other parts of Switzerland.
580. The pile-dwellings of the tribal community of the Suren were located in the banks of Lake Zurich, from where they took long expeditions which led them to the Mediterranean Sea and to the North Sea, to the Atlantic Ocean and even to the Bosporus.
..
582. The reason why he and his group was so far away from home in the Oeztal Mountains, was that he as the chief of his sib and as an influential man was in connection with our forbearers. Through them he gained certain knowledge and lived – just as all members of his entire sib – according to certain rules of our making.

ET, Ptaah unequivocally says that the home of the Iceman was in the "banks of Lake Zurich", which is a lake in Switzerland, extending southeast of the city of Zürich. But what does the Science say about it ?

The following is an excerpt from the article - The Iceman is All Italian - that was published in Science magazine, October 30, 2003.

"The renowned Alpine Iceman, known as Ötzi, has painted an extraordinarily detailed picture of life some 5000 years ago, during the late Neolithic era. Researchers know Ötzi's age, his health, what he ate, and how he died. Now they have pinpointed his origins to a few valleys in southern Tyrol. Ötzi probably never strayed more than 60 kilometers from his birthplace and spent his entire life in the mountains of what's now Italy."

Original science paper - Origin and migration of the Alpine Ice man - published in Science, can be read here.

Conclusion #1:
Meier/ET's information on Iceman's birthplace as being in Switzerland does not at all match with Science, which says that he lived all his life in northern Italy.

2. AUSTRIA-ITALY BORDER DISPUTE:

The following verses are from the pages 2539 & 2540 of Semjase-Kontakt-Berichte Vol 13 (only pg. 2539 is available), as being provided in Michael Horn's article.

Ptaah:
572. The next thing will happen in the Ötztal Mountains in Austria*, namely on the Similaun glacier. 573. There the mummified remains, or more precisely the mummified corpse of a man will be found who has lost his life there 5,105 years ago and was preserved by nature’s forces..
..
Billy:
You could say then that this Urk was an original Swiss, so-to-say, whereby his mummified body would be brought to Switzerland. Research will surely be done on him, what then would righteously be the task of Swiss scientists, isn’t it?
Ptaah:
If looked at it from a legal angle, it would have to be that way, that’s right.
586. However, neither the Austrians nor the Italians will be drawn into this (my note: will be aware of the fact), and they will mutually claim the right on the mummified body because there will be border disputes regarding the location where the corpse will be found.
587. Of course they wouldn’t pay any attention to my words and would call you a charlatan, cheat and liar, who would have purely invented my explanations, if you or someone else would make some claim on the mummy in the name of Switzerland.
Billy:
That’s clear to me.

* the word 'Austria' was missing in the English translation on theyfly website, even though it exists in German as 'Österreich'.

From verses 572 & 573, ET-Ptaah seems to say that a mummified corpse of a man, died 5,105 years ago, will be found on Similaun glacier, part of the Ötztal Mountains in AUSTRIA. Similaun glacier is a mountain in the Schnalskamm group of the Ötztal Alps. It is on the Austrian-Italian border. Ptaah, in later verses, says that there will be border dispute between Italy & Austria, but doesn't say explicitly who finally wins the dispute. Though if we consider Ptaah's verse 572, he seems to suggest that the corpse would be found on the Austrian side which makes the corpse as belonging to Austria. So, is it really true that the corpse was found on Austrian side ?

When the Iceman was discovered on Sep 19, 1991, initially it was thought that the location was in the Austrian territory. Soon rumours began to spread that it had actually been found on the Italian side of the border and not – as originally thought – on Austrian soil. Following is an excerpt from Iceman (Brenda Fowler), pg. 57, 2001:

"Over the next few days (note: after discovery on Sep 19, 1991), gendarmes, carabinieri, and custom officers began making unofficial measurements at the site. At first, the Austrians said it was in Italy, and the Italinas said it was in Austria. then the Italians issued a news release expressing doubt about their own result..a group of carabinieri and customs officials together with a few Austrian police had again tried to measure the position of the site. Again the verdict was for Italy. But until a team of government surveyors was on hand, no one could say with authority on which side of the border the mummy's resting place lay."

A new official survey of the border was set for & carried out on October 2, 1991 which finally clarified the matter. It turned out that the find was 92.56 m from the border in South Tyrol, i.e. in Italy.

Conclusion #2:
Meier/ET's information on the location of Iceman's corpse as being on the Austrian side of the Ötztal Mountains has been shown to be incorrect. And the true location of the corpse was found to be on the Italian side of the Ötztal Mountains.

3. AGE OF ÖTZI (at the time of his death):

The following verse is from the page 2539 of Semjase-Kontakt-Berichte Vol 13, as being provided in Michael Horn's article.

Ptaah:
581. Urk* war bei seinem Tode 37 Jahre und 8 Monate alt, und um ganz genau zu sein noch 17 Tage.
581. At his death, Urk was exactly 37 years and 8 months old, and to be exact, 17 days.

* name given by the alleged Plejaren ancestors to Ötzi, more than 5,000 years ago

The following is the timeline of all articles we were able to gather, in which different ages of Ötzi was estimated scientifically:

June 3-5, 1992 -  25 - 40 years or most likely 35 - 40 years, Der Mann im Eis, 1993

September 16, 1992 - 25 to 40 years

"The initial estimate, based on the analysis of the wear on the man's teeth, had been between 35 and 40, but, using zur Nedden's CAT scans of the skull, Seidler arrived at a significantly different estimate. At birth, a child's skull is not a seamless bony shell but rather a collage of separate bony plates that expands as the child grows. The plates finally grow together by adulthood. Though the method's reliability is often questioned, Seidler used it to determine that the sutures between the plates were closed but still visible, which was typical of someone between 25 and 35 years old. By either results the man had definitely reached adulthood. By the standards of his age, he was hardly young. Only 2 % of the population of that time ever reached their 40th year."
Source: 'Iceman' by Brenda Fowler, pages 153-154, 2001

October 6, 1992 - 20 years

Up to the year 1996 since the discovery of Ice man on September 1991, the age of Iceman at the time of his death, was estimated to be between 20 or 25 to a maximum of 40 years. But in the year 1996, everything changed.

June 28, 1996 - 45 to 50 years

"Preliminary x-rays had already revealed that Ötzi had some sclerosis in his neck arteries at the time of death. But the good general condition of the skeleton, despite some signs of arthritis, says Sjavold, originally led scientists to peg his age at between 25 and 40.

Further tests reveal, though, that the Ice Man was a mature fellow who had probably already outlived most of his peers. Sjavold explains that CT studies showed that fusion of the skull sutures was far enough advanced to suggest someone in his mid- to late 40's. The internal structure of the bones of the upper arms and legs, made of a spongy-looking system of tiny rods that thin and dissolve with age, also supported that estimate. So did microscopic analyses of two small samples taken from the man's thigh bone...Finally, the Ice Man's teeth were extremely worn. That could have been caused by grit from hand-milled flour, but it's also in line with the refined age estimate. "

Source: Ice Man didn't die Young, Science, vol. 272, June 28, 1996

Further analyses also confirmed the above 1996 result, with the age of Ice man being at least 45 years old.

May 1998 - 45 to 53 years

The following information was taken from respective official websites :

"What did Ötzi look like?
..The mummy was without a doubt an adult male. Judging from his bone structure, he was around 45 years old.."

Source: South Tyrol Musuem of Archaeology, Bolzano, Italy (where Ötzi is currently resting since 1998)

"6. Was Ötzi a grandpa?
It´s impossible to say if Ötzi was a grandfather. But there is no doubt that he was among the oldest members of his community. His age was determined with the help of a sample taken from his upper thigh bone. Because people´s bone tissues are continuously broken down and remodelled, bone structure changes characteristically with a person´s age. Ötzi´s bone tissue looks like that of a 46-year-old man. In the Late Neolithic period that was a ripe old age. It is conceivable that Ötzi was the oldest member of his village."
Source: Topics of the travelling exhibition "Ötzi Cultour", South Tyrol Museum of Archaeology, Bolzano, Italy.

Conclusion #3:
Meier's given age for Ötzi at the time of his death, which is around 38 years (to be precise 37 years, 8 months, 17 days) doesn't at all match with the current scientific evidence so far cited, that gives the value of around 45 years.

4. AGE OF ÖTZI'S CORPSE:

The following verse is from the page 2539 of Semjase-Kontakt-Berichte Vol 13, as being provided in Michael Horn's article.

Ptaah:
573. Dort nämlich werden die mumifizierten Überreste resp. die mumifizierte Leiche eines Mannes gefunden, der vor 5105 Jahren dort den Tod fand und durch die Naturkräfte konserviert wurde.
573. There the mummified remains, or more precisely the mummified corpse of a man will be found who has lost his life there 5,105 years ago and was preserved by nature’s forces.

5,105 years ago from the time of the alleged conversation between Meier and ET (Ptaah) is 3,114 BC, which we are being told is the age of the corpse.

What does the current science say about the age of the corpse ?

"Undisputable proof of the authenticity and extraordinary age of the Iceman and his possessions was provided by C-14 analysis. This method of dating organic material is commonly used by archaeologists. Four different scientific institutions analyzed tissue samples from the corpse and the finds. The results were unequivocal: the Iceman lived between 3350 and 3100 BC."
Source: South Tyrol Musuem of Archaeology, Bolzano, Italy

As we can see, that Meier's given age for the Ötzi's corpse is within the scientific estimates. Now, the next logical question is:
Was Meier the first person to publish the actual age of Ötzi's corpse ?

To find an answer to this question, we need to look into all the earlier FIGU publications in which information about the corpse's age from Contact Report 238 was published. The following are those publications and the corresponding text: (Note: Rough English translations)


Ptaah:
The next thing will happen in the Oetztal Mountains in Austria, namely on the Similaun glacier. There namely the mummified remains, a mummified corpse of a man will be found who has lost his life there 4,105 years ago and was preserved by the forces of nature..

Stimme der Wassermannzeit, Nr. 79/2, Jahrgang 15, pg 42, June 1991

Billy:
..Then yet another question, which has got nothing to do with Yugoslavia. Urk, as you said, is the name of an ancient dead man that will be found in Ötztal in the Austrian mountains. Do you know anything about whether his age will be recognized by scientists and if it will be found out how long Urk laid there? I ask this because, as Quetzal once explained, very precise age analyzes are very questionable with the conventional methods that are available to the terrestrial human beings.
Ptaah:
The man was 37 years, 8 months and 17 days old, and he died 4105 years ago, as I told you already. However your presumption is right that the time of his death was calculated wrongly due to defective and faulty methods of age determination of all kinds of materials, because atomic changes arise when a certain number of years is exceeded, in which by cosmic-radioactive influences most plants and materials of earth are changed in such a way, that by the radiocarbon method faulty results up to well over one thousand years occur, when the content of radioactive carbon is measured. The content of radioactive carbon can be more or less, depending on whether the examined material is younger or older than a thousand years or older than a little over 2600 years, what will be the case with Urk, so the earth scientists will obtain a false result of about 500-700 years.
Billy:
If I understand correctly, then age determinations can be made very precisely with the radiocarbon method up to a thousand years of age, then for the next 1600 years, a reasonably stable result can be achieved, after which incorrect results of up to 1000 years can appear for ages over a little more than 2600 years, because cosmic-radioactive influences changed the atomic resp. radioactive structures of terrestrial organic- and other materials.
Ptaah:
That was the meaning of my explanation.
Billy:
It was perhaps explained a bit complicated, which could lead to misunderstandings, which unfortunately happen all too quickly with terrestrial human beings.

Stimme der Wassermannzeit, Nr. 88, Jahrgang 19, pg 11, September 1993 

Ptaah:
The next thing will happen in the Ötztal Mountains in Austria, namely on the Similaun glacier. There namely the mummified remains, a mummified corpse, of a man will be found who has lost his life there 4,105 years ago and was preserved by the forces of nature.

Prophetien und Voraussagen, pg 288, 1996

Ptaah:
572. The next thing will happen in the Oeztal Mountains in Austria, namely on the Similaun glacier.
573. There namely the mummified remains, a mummified corpse, of a man will be found who has lost his life there 5,105 years ago and was preserved by the forces of nature.

Semjase-Kontakt-Berichte volume 13, pg 2539, 1996
(source: Theyfly/anonymous editions)

Ptaah:
572. The next thing will happen in the Oetztal Mountains in Austria, namely on the Similaun glacier.
573. There namely the mummified remains - (respectively/of a) -  the mummified corpse of a man will be found who has lost his life there 5,105 years ago and was preserved by the forces of nature.
......
Billy:
..Then yet another question, which has got nothing to do with Yugoslavia. Urk, as you said, is the name of an ancient dead man that will be found in Ötztal in the Austrian mountains. Do you know anything about whether his age will be recognized by scientists and if it will be found out how long Urk laid there? I ask this because, as Quetzal once explained, very precise age analyzes are very questionable with the conventional methods that are available to the terrestrial human beings.
Ptaah:
XXX*. The man was 37 years, 8 months and 17 days old, and he died 5105 years ago, as I told you already.
YYY*. However your presumption is right that the time of his death was calculated wrongly due to defective and faulty methods of age determination of all kinds of materials, because atomic changes arise when a certain number of years is exceeded, in which by cosmic-radioactive influences most plants and materials of earth are changed in such a way, that by the radiocarbon method faulty results up to well over one thousand years occur, when the content of radioactive carbon is measured.
ZZZ*. The content of radioactive carbon can be more or less, depending on whether the examined material is younger or older than a thousand years or older than a little over 2600 years, what will be the case with Urk, so the earth scientists will obtain a false result of about 50-70 years.
Billy:
If I understand correctly, then age determinations can be made very precisely with the radiocarbon method up to a thousand years of age, then for the next 1600 years, a reasonably stable result can be achieved, after which incorrect results of up to 1000 years can appear for ages over a little more than 2600 years, because cosmic-radioactive influences changed the atomic resp. radioactive structures of terrestrial organic- and other materials.
Ptaah:
UUU*. That was the meaning of my explanation.
Billy:
It was perhaps explained a bit complicated, which could lead to misunderstandings, which unfortunately happen all too quickly with terrestrial human beings.

* actual verse numbers haven't been checked

FIGU Bulletin Nr. 47, Jahrgang 10, April 2004

Ptaah:
The next thing will happen in the Ötztal Mountains in Austria, namely on the Similaun glacier. There namely the mummified remains of a mummified corpse of a man will be found who has lost his life there 5,105 years ago and was preserved by the forces of nature.

Plejadisch-Plejarische Kontaktberichte, Vol. 6, pg. 397, 2004

Ptaah:
586. The next thing will happen in the Oetztal Mountains, on the Similaun glacier.
587. There the mummified remains, or more precisely the mummified corpse of a man will be found who has lost his life there 5,105 years ago and was preserved by nature’s forces.
......
Billy:
..Then yet another question, which has got nothing to do with Yugoslavia. Urk, as you said, is the name of an ancient dead man that will be found in Ötztal in the Austrian mountains. Do you know anything about whether his age will be recognized by scientists and if it will be found out how long Urk laid there? I ask this because, as Quetzal once explained, very precise age analyzes are very questionable with the conventional methods that are available to the terrestrial human beings.
Ptaah:
822. The man was 37 years, 8 months and 17 days old, and he died 5105 years ago, as I told you already.
823. However your presumption is right that the time of his death was calculated wrongly due to defective and faulty methods of age determination of all kinds of materials, because atomic changes arise when a certain number of years is exceeded, in which by cosmic-radioactive influences most plants and materials of earth are changed in such a way, that by the radiocarbon method faulty results up to well over one thousand years occur, when the content of radioactive carbon is measured.
824. The content of radioactive carbon can be more or less, depending on whether the examined material is younger or older than a thousand years or older than a little over 2600 years, what will be the case with Urk, so the earth scientists will obtain a false result of about 50-70 years.
Billy:
If I understand correctly, then age determinations can be made very precisely with the radiocarbon method up to a thousand years of age, then for the next 1600 years a reasonably stable result can be achieved, after which incorrect results of up to 1000 years can appear for ages over a little more than 2600 years, because cosmic-radioactive influences changed the atomic resp. radioactive structures of terrestrial organic- and other materials.
Ptaah:
825. That was the meaning of my explanation.
Billy:
It was perhaps explained a bit complicated, which could lead to misunderstandings, which unfortunately happen all too quickly with terrestrial human beings.

So what do we have here ?

In the following earlier publications, the age of Ötzi's corpse was given as 4,105 years (from 1991) and not as 5,105 years (from 1991). The value of '5,105 years' was only printed in publications from the year 1996 onwards. 

Stimme der Wassermannzeit, Nr. 79/1, Jahrgang 15, pg 60, June 1991
Stimme der Wassermannzeit, Nr. 79/2, Jahrgang 15, pg 42, June 1991
Stimme der Wassermannzeit, Nr. 88, Jahrgang 19, pg 11, September 1993 

Not only that but Meier was told by ET that our earth scientists in their investigations to find out the age of Ötzi, would obtain a false result that has a deviation of about 500-700 years. This deviation value was again modified to 50-70 years in FIGU publications from the year 1996 onwards.

Could it be just a printing error or other ?

The following are four reasons why the argument that '4,105' being modified to '5,105' and '500-700' being modified to '50-70' in later publications is just a weird coincidence due to printing or other error - is weak:

Reason #1:
Following is the list of 'scientists & others' estimated ages for Ice man's corpse (discovered for the first time on Sep 19, 1991) & the publication date of that news article carrying that estimated age.

Sep 19, 1991 - < 53 years & could belong to a music professor who is missing since the year 19381
Sep 22, 1991 - about 500 years or could be even 700 years or 800 years2
Sep 24, 1991 - at least 4,000 years3
Dec 14, 1991 - between 4,616 to 4,866 years BP  (4,657 to 4,907 years ago from 1991)
Feb 22, 1992 - between 5,100 to 5,300 years5 
                        56% probability between 3350-3300 BC (5291-5341 years ago from 1991)
                        36% probability between 3210-3160 BC (5201-5151 years ago from 1991)
                          8% probability between 3140-3120 BC (5131-5111 years ago from 1991)

References:
1 by Markus Pirpamer, young caretaker of the Similaun Hütte, Iceman (Brenda Fowler), pg. 15, 2001
2 by World-famous mountaineer, Reinhold MessnerIceman (Brenda Fowler), pg. 25, 2001
by Konrad Spindler (Austrian archaeologist), after observing Ötzi's tools, Iceman (Brenda Fowler), pg. 40, 2001
Plejadisch-Plejarische Kontaktberichte, Vol. 6, pg. 440, 2004
Results are still valid. While some science papers quote '5,350 years' as the max. limit; this however does not affect our investigation

We know from Part 2/4 that FIGU has for the first time delivered both the SWZ, Nr. 79/1, Jahrgang 15, June 1991 and SWZ, Nr. 79/2, Jahrgang 15, June 1991 at the end of "January 1992" and not in June 1991 as the date on their cover pages suggests. And we in this Part 3/4, also have just shown that the age of the Iceman's corpse according to ET was given as 4105 + (500 to 700) years from 1991. If we consider these deviations, then according to ET, our scientists estimate should fall between 4,605 to 4,805 years which very closely matches with the results arrived by scientists - 4,657 to 4,907 years ago from 1991 - based on grass samples taken from Ötzi's boots & announced to the media in December 1991.

But later, radiocarbon dating of the man's skin tissue and bone were conducted at Oxford and Zurich, producing the calibrated figures which place the Iceman between 5,100 & 5,300 years. These results were only released on February 22, 1992 which is almost a month after FIGU published & delivered the two booklets SWZ, Nr. 79/1, & 79/2 to FIGU Passive members, at the end of January 1992. So skeptics could argue that they could not rule out the null hypothesis which is that Meier/FIGU would have used the latest scientific results on the age of the Ice man as has been published in media (newspapers, radio, TV,..etc) as basis for their publication of Contact Report 238; which ultimately turned out to be inaccurate. And the new and more accurate results were published by scientists only on Feb 22, 1992, almost a month after Meier/FIGU published their material.

And skeptics could still argue that Meier/FIGU after noticing the new, accurate results have incorporated it in the new publications from 1996 onwards by just editing (replacing or removing a single digit) - '4,105' to '5,105' and '500-700' to '50-70'. And this makes the Ptaah's prediction of our scientists estimate on the age of Iceman's corpse to be between 5,155 and 5,175 years; which again lies within the scientific range of 5,100 to 5,300 years.

Reason #2:
FIGU Core Group member - Hans George Lanzendorfer published an article - Gletschermann URK, Häuptling der Suren vom Zürichsee oder: Wer suchet der findet - in Stimme der Wassermannzeit, Nr. 88, Jahrgang 19, pg 11, September 1993, where he defends the "4,105 years ago" value and makes a point that scientists were "incapable" of finding the true date of Iceman's corpse by making wrong scientific interpretations and arriving at incorrect value of "5,300 years". On page 12, HGL writes the following:

"Indeed it came to pass, as was announced by Ptaah four months in advance, that on September 19, 1991 at the Similaun Glacier at a an altitude of 3,210 meters the corpse of a mummified man was found by a hiker. At first, the exact age of the man was not recognized by the amateurish archaeological work of the finder with the discovery of the corpse and was mistakenly dated at the Middle Ages. Only detailed studies brought to daylight an age of about 4,000 years. With this indication of an age of 4,000-4,200 years, the scientist were amazingly close with their age determination to the age of the glacier corpse of the man of 4,105 years as mentioned by Ptaah, during which it lay buried under snow and ice. By "improvements" and scientific interpretations this initially correctly determined age of the man was falsified up to an age of over 5,300 years."

But strangely, HGL has published an article in FIGU Bulletin Nr. 47, Jahrgang 10, April 2004, where he presents '5,105 years ago' (see below excerpt) instead of '4,105 years ago'. In this article, he doesn't notify readers regarding the change of the age of the corpse, even though he refers to his 1993 article on page 1. His 2004 article contradicts his own conclusions, which he arrived in his article published in SWZ, Nr. 88, Jahrgang 19, September 1993. 

"Ptaah:
The next thing will happen in the Ötztal Mountains in Austria, namely on the Similaun glacier. There namely the mummified remains of a mummified corpse of a man will be found who has lost his life there 5,105 years ago and was preserved by the forces of nature."

Reason #3:
ET, Ptaah says that our radiocarbon dating methods are "defective and faulty" and depending on the age of the material,  faulty results of up to 'more than 1000 years' would occur. Then Meier expresses this issue more clearly, to which Ptaah agrees. Meier says the following in all publications:

          Age of the material - Accuracy in determining age
  1. 19916  to ~1,000 AD - very precise results
  2. ~1,000 AD to ~600 BC - reasonably stable results
  3. After ~600 BC - incorrect results of up to well over 1,000 years7
date of the alleged conversation between Meier & ET, Ptaah - May 18, 1991, 12:55 PM
in Ptaah's verse 823 from CR 238, the variation in faulty results is given as 'up to well over one thousand years'; but in the next Billy's verse the variation is given as 'up to 1000 years'. Which one is the real limit ?

In reason #1, we have shown that from the year 1996 onwards, the value corresponding to faulty results was changed from '500-700 years' to '50-70 years'. But this seems to contradict what was being told about the faulty radiocarbon dating. According to both Meier & Ptaah, radiocarbon dating of any material that is greater than ~600 BC will give incorrect results of up to well over 1,000 years; which matches more perfectly with the '500-700 years' value than the '50-70 years' value (a few decades difference is still considered to be a stable and precise result according to both science & Plejaren). Skeptics could argue that the value might be changed from '500-700' to '50-70', because if we apply the '500-700 years' value to the '5,105 years' value, then we would get Ptaah's prediction on scientists estimate of the age of Iceman's corpse to be between 5,605-5,805 years, which completely falls outside the accurate scientific estimate of 5,100-5,300 years.

Last but not least, there is no scientific evidence at all for the claims made by Meier & the alleged Ptaah on the faulty radiocarbon dating measurements. Please visit the following links for more information on what radiocarbon dating is and how it is used and calibrated for all possible errors.

References:
Radiocarbon dating
Dendrochronology
Tree-ring calibration
Radiocarbon calibration

Reason #4:
In Contact Report 182 that allegedly occurred on February 1983, Meier & Quetzal (another ET) discussed the same issue of faulty radiocarbon dating as measured by the earth scientists. In this contact report, Meier refers to an earlier time when he was informed by Quetzal himself, about the same topic. This earlier time could be 1978 because Meier also published this same information in a book - Existentes Leben im Universum(ELIU), pgs. 353-355, even though is copyrighted as 1978/1993, was only published for the first time in 1993. This same topic was also published in Stimme der Wassermannzeit Nr. 50, pgs. 7-9, Jan/Feb/Mar 1984 under the title 'Das Universum'.

As we will see below, in each of these & more recent publications, the values & text were being changed. Visit this link, to see the text comparison between SWZ Nr.50 vs ELIU vs CR 182, PPKB 5. Following are the conclusions obtained from reading the text line-by-line in each publication.

Time rangeAccuracy of modern dating methods

SWZ Nr.50, Jan/Feb/Mar 1984:
  • Present* to 1,438 years ago (540/545 AD) - terrestrial dating instruments & apparatus, & also the purely chemical dating processes, are very well polished & are largely precise 
  • After 540/545 AD – variation of 1,942 years or more (should be added for correct results) 
ELIU, 1993:
  • Present* to ~1,000 years ago (~1,000 AD) - terrestrial dating instruments & apparatus, & also the purely chemical dating processes, are very well polished & are largely precise; variation of up to 151 years (plus or minus?) 
  • After ~1,000 AD - variation of up to 1,942 years or more (should be added for correct results) 
  • After ~1,000 AD - variation of up to ± ~1,940 years (should be added or subtracted for correct results) 
  • Radiometric dating variations play a big role up to 7,700 years (from 1978) i.e. up to 5,722 BC – variation of up to ±1942 years (should be added or subtracted for correct results) 
  • 1,000 AD to 2,600 BC – only correct to some degree; variation of up to 1,942 years (should be added for correct results) 
  • 2,600 BC to 5,700 BC – variation of up to 1,340 years (should be subtracted for correct results) 
CR 182, PPKB 5, 2004:
  • Present* to 1,438 BC - terrestrial dating instruments & apparatus, & also the purely chemical dating processes, are very well polished & are largely precise 
  • After 1,438 BC – variation of 1,942 years (should be added to get correct results) 
  • After 1,438 BC – variation of up to 1,942 years (should be added to get correct results) 
  • After 1,438 BC – variation of 1,942 years (should be added or subtracted to get correct results) 
  • After 1,438 BC – variation of more than 1942 years (plus or minus?) 
* could be either 1978 or 1983

As you can see, the text in ELIU and in PPKB 5 is ambiguous in a way that it raises a lot of internal contradictions. Not only that but during the comparison of the three publications by putting them side-by-side, the text and numbers do not match at all. Let us assume for a moment that the most recent publication - CR 182, PPKB 5 - published in 2004 is the one with the accurate content, while the unmatched data in earlier publications being attributed to printing or other errors.

Even then, the information in CR 182, PPKB 5 contradicts with the information published in CR 238, PPKB, which is:
  • 19916  to ~1,000 AD - very precise results
  • ~1,000 AD to ~600 BC - reasonably stable results
  • After ~600 BC - incorrect results of up to well over 1,000 years7
Main differences between the content in CR 182 & CR 238 being:
  • 1,438 BC vs ~600 BC 
  • 1,942 years vs 1,000 years
Conclusion #4:
Meier's information on the age of Ötzi's corpse & the margin of error has not only been changed over the years in different publications since 1991 but also seems to contradict with the other information published in SWZ Nr. 50, ELIU & CR 182; giving the impression that either this is just a "weird coincidence" or a deliberate act to edit the content in order to reconclie with the information published and reported to the media on the latest scientific findings on Iceman.

What did we find so far ?

Let us put together all the conclusions arrived at since the beginning:

Conclusion #1:
Meier/ET's information on Iceman's birthplace as being in Switzerland does not at all match with Science, which says that he lived all his life in northern Italy.
Conclusion #2:
Meier/ET's information on the location of Iceman's corpse as being on the Austrian side of the Ötztal Mountains has shown to be incorrect. And the true location of the corpse was found to be on the Italian side of the Ötztal Mountains.
Conclusion #3:
Meier's given age for Ötzi at the time of his death, which is around 38 years (to be precise 37 years, 8 months, 17 days) doesn't at all match with the current scientific evidence so far cited, that gives the value of around 45 years.
Conclusion #4:
Meier's information on the age of Ötzi's corpse & the margin of error has not only been changed over the years in different publications since 1991 but also seems to contradict with the other information published in SWZ Nr. 50, ELIU & CR 182; giving the impression that either this is just a "weird coincidence" or a deliberate act to edit the content in order to reconclie with the information published and reported to the media on the latest scientific findings on Iceman.

What does this mean to

For Skeptic's
The evidence so-far cited does not support the ET-hypothesis but instead overwhelmingly supports the null hypothesis which states that Meier or FIGU would have used the latest scientific results about the Ice man as has been published in media (newspapers, radio, TV,..etc), as the basis for their publication of the information in Contact Report 238. 

For Meier/FIGU supporters:
The only way to reconcile with the discrepancies that exist between scientific results & the information on Iceman in Meier/FIGU's publications - is by proposing that our science is still ill-equipped to find out the "actual truth" behind Iceman's story, as is given by Meier/ETs. And the real facts can only be found out either in the far future with advanced science & technology or to time travel back into the time of Iceman and observe the "facts" by ourselves.

Also, the only way to reconclie with the continuous editing & the internal contradictions that arose - is by proposing that this is just a weird coincidence that has come about due to printing or other errors.

Note:
In the next, last Part 4/4, I will present my analysis on the information published by Meier on Ice man's causes of death, events leading up to his death & any updates that has come up in the meantime.

(will be continued in Part 4/4)

Saturday, September 27, 2014

Should Billy Meier be awarded the $1,000,000 prize for "his" prediction on the death of 5,300 year old Ice man - Ötzi ? (Part 2/4)

(continued from Part 1/4)

In this Part 2/4, we will discuss the following three points, all adding further support to the hypothesis that ARROW was added to SKB 13 after the discovery was made by scientists on July 2001:
  1. Did Meier publish the information on Ice man, Ötzi in June 1991 publications of SWZ Nr. 79/1 & 79/2 ?
  2. Is FIGU Core Group member, Hans George Lanzendorfer's corroboration article on Ötzi in FIGU Bulletin 47 (April 2004) valid ?
  3. My personal correspondence with the press office of South Tyrol Museum of Archaeology & UFO-Nachrichten

1. Did Meier publish the information on Ice man, Ötzi in June 1991 publications of SWZ Nr. 79/1 & 79/2 ?

In the first part, I mentioned the following under 'Note #3':

"I forgot to address one more issue that has to do with the publication date of Stimme der Wassermannzeit, Nr. 79/1, Jahrgang 15, June 1991. People who are not acquainted with the fact (and the possible consequences) that almost all of Meier/FIGU members books are self-published through their own publishing office, called as Wassermannzeit-Verlag, would notice that Meier has published the discovery of Ice man (without the ARROW information) in the June 1991 issue of Stimme der Wassermannzeit, 3 months before the discovery of Ice man's corpse on September 19, 1991 in the Ötztal Alps on the Austrian–Italian border. And they would argue that this discovery aspect at least proves the unusual source behind Meier, which we are unambiguously told are ETs. I will deal with this issue in Part 2/4."

To get to the bottom of this, I have contacted FIGU Core Group member, Elisabeth Moosbrugger, the wife of late Guido Moosbrugger, regarding the publication date - June 1991 - as it appears on the two Stimme der Wassermannzeit booklets (Nr. 79/1 & 79/2). Both booklets contains information on Ice man, Ötzi. She responded as follows.




from: Elisabeth Moosbrugger <***********@******.de>
to: karumudi mahesh chowdary <mahigitam@gmail.com>
date: Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 11:37 PM
subject: Re: Klarstellung on SWZ Nr. 79/1 und 79/2 vom Juni 1991

Lieber Mahesh Karumudi!

Ob die beiden WZ schon im Juni erschienen, weiss ich nicht mehr genau. Ich denke eher, dass es später war, nachdem der Eismann gefunden worden war. Grundsätzlich gibt Billy die Kontaktberichte erst dann heraus, wenn sich das Ereignis vollzogen hat. Die Hefte sind auch nicht zusammen mit dem WZ 79 verschickt worden. Der Kontakt vom 18. Mai 1991 ist sehr lang - über 70 A4 Seiten - und wir haben ihn auch nur Portionsweise bekommen in der Kerngruppe und ich bin mir ziemlich sicher, dass er erst herausgegeben wurde, nachdem sich alles erfüllt hat. Über den Eismann steht in WZ 79/1 auf Seite 60/61 etwas und in 79/2 auf Seite 42 und 43.


Mit lieben Grüssen
Salome
Elisabeth


Rough English translation:

Dear Mahesh Karumudi!

I do not remember exactly whether the two WZ appeared in June. I rather think that it was later, after the Iceman was discovered. As a rule, Billy only publishes the contact reports after the event has taken place. The booklets
(my note: SWZ or WZ 79/1 & 79/2) were not sent along with WZ 79 (
my note: SWZ Nr. 79 is also from June 1991). The contact of May 18, 1991 is very long – over 70 A4 pages – and we only received portions of it in the Core Group and I’m pretty sure that it was only published after everything had been fulfilled. There’s something about the ice man in WZ 79/1 on page 60/61 and in 79/2 on page 42 and 43.

With kind regards
Salome 
Elisabeth 

Then I asked her if the booklets were published after the Ice man was discovered, which is on Sep 19, 1991, then why would the booklets carry the date June 1991 on its cover page. Also, I have asked if these extended booklets (SWZ 79/1 & 79/2) were sent to FIGU passive members who automatically gets subscribed to these booklets under passive membership, or were these outside the subscription and were available only for sale from FIGU. To which, she replied as follows.

from: Elisabeth Moosbrugger <***********@******.de>
to: karumudi mahesh chowdary <mahigitam@gmail.com>
date: Thu, Jul 17, 2014 at 12:33 AM
subject: Re: Klarstellung on SWZ Nr. 79/1 und
79/2 vom Juni 1991

Lieber Mahesh Karumudi!

WZ tragen das Datum vom Juni, weil sie mit der Nummer 79 erweitert wurden und der nächste Wassermann eben erst im September erschienen ist, zu spät für die Kontaktberichte. Und ich kann Dir beim besten Willen nicht mehr sagen, wann die anderen WZ Aktuell gedruckt und ausgeliefert wurden. Dies musst Du einfach akzeptieren, dass dies in der FIGU so gehandhabt wird. Ausserdem musst Du nicht hier irgendwelche Beweise suchen, denn die Bewiese für die Wahrheit muss der Mensch immer in sich selbst suchen durch eigenes Nachdenken und logisches Vorgehen. Alles andere sind äussere Beweise, die von jedem, der nicht gewillt ist, die Wahrheit anzuerkennen, widerlegt werden können.
Konzentriere Dich nicht so sehr auf die äusseren Beweise, sondern versuche die Beweise in Dir selbst zu finden. Ausserdem kannst Du sowie so niemand überzeugen, der nicht gewillt ist, selber nachzudenken und die Beweise für die Richtigkeit der Ausserirdischen und allen damit zusammenhängenden Dingen anzuerkennen durch eigenes Nachdenken.
Bei der FIGU geht es um die Lehre der Wahrheit, Lehre des Geistes und Lehre des Lebens. Auf diese kommt es an und diese sollte sich der Mensch zu Gemüte führen, damit er in seiner Evolution weitervoranschreiten kann. Alles andere ist oft nichts anderes als Sensationshascherei.
Dies ein paar Gedanken für Dich zum Nachdenken.

Liebe Grüsse
Salome
Elisabeth

Rough English translation:

Dear Mahesh Karumudi!

WZ
(my note: SWZ or WZ 79/1 & 79/2) have the date of June, because they were extended on nr. 79 (my note: SWZ Nr. 79 was also published on June 1991) and the next WZ (my note: SWZ Nr. 80, Sep 1991) was published in September, too late for the Contact Reports (my note: Contact Report 238). And I truly cannot say you when the other WZ were actually printed and mailed (my note: to the passive FIGU members). You simply have to except this is how this is dealt with in FIGU. Apart from that, you shouldn’t search for any evidence here, because evidence for the truth, the human being should always search within himself by his own thinking and logical proceeding. Everything else is external evidence which can be refuted by anyone who is not willing to acknowledge the truth.
Do not concentrate so much on the external evidence, but try to find the proof within yourself. Furthermore you cannot convince anyone in this way who is not willing to think for himself and acknowledge the evidence for the accuracy of the extraterrestrials and all related things by his own thinking.
In the FIGU it’s all about the teaching of truth, the teaching of the spirit and the teaching of life. It’s all about this and this the human being should take into consideration, so that he can continue to move forward in his evolution. Everything else is often nothing more then sensationalism.
These are a few thoughts for you to think about.


Best regards 
Salome
Elisabeth



So, what did we learn from this correspondence with Elisabeth ?

1)
We came to know that the so-called publication dates that appears on the cover page or on the copyrights page of books or booklets or for that matter any material at all are not reliable in this case and should be checked through independent sources & other methods.

In this instance, we learned from FIGU Core Group member Elisabeth Moosbrugger that the publication date - June 1991 - that appears on the two booklets of SWZ Nr. 79/1 and Nr. 79/2, both of which contains the Ice man information are actually published only after the Ice man was discovered on Sep 19, 1991. This information was also confirmed by a FIGU passive member from Europe who informed us that he wrote 'end January 1992' on his SWZ 79/2 booklet, meaning that he received his booklets in the end of January 1992, 3 months after Ice man was discovered.

2)
Elisabeth also says this - "As a rule, Billy only publishes the contact reports after the event has taken place.", which further supports the hypothesis (that ARROW part was added after the discovery of Ice man's corpse in Sep 19, 1991) we discussed in part 1. One has to wonder if this is also the case with the rest of the alleged "fulfilled" prophetic and predictive information.

3)
Elisabeth, also says this - "..you shouldn’t search for any evidence here, because evidence for the truth, the human being should always search within himself by his own thinking and logical proceeding. Everything else is external evidence which can be refuted by anyone who is not willing to acknowledge the truth...In the FIGU it’s all about the teaching of truth, the teaching of the spirit and the teaching of life..Everything else is often nothing more then sensationalism." - and a lot of other stuff. This is so different and in so much contrast to the many articles published by other FIGU Core Group members, passive members & Meier case Rep. Michael Horn, who publish articles (even on Ice man, Ötzi) regarding the alleged corroboration of evidence at every chance they get.

This is the same, usual response I also got from another Core Group member & indeed from several other Meier case supporters (both FIGU & non-FIGU) too, whenever they are being pointed out about the so-called evidence that has been promoted as strong evidence of the case, is not valid. After reading Elisabeth's clichéd response, I responded by pointing out to her that my inquiry into this Ice man theme was warranted after reading the "corroboration" article on Ice man, published by another Core Group member, Hans George Lanzendorfer (HGL) in FIGU Bulletin 47, April 2004.

2. Is FIGU Core Group member, Hans George Lanzendorfer's corroboration article on Ötzi in FIGU Bulletin 47 (April 2004) valid ?

Now let us carefully study the main points of the article written by HGL in FIGU Bulletin 47, April 2004.

On page 1 of the article, he presents Contact Report 238 where Meier and ET talk about the discovery of Ice man and his death. As we mentioned in Part 1, the ARROW part is missing. What we forgot to mention in Part 1 is that HGL later on page 3 of the article, presents an article from July 26, 2001 with the title - 'Durch einen Pfeil getötet' (Killed by an arrow) - published in Swiss newspaper 'Der Landbote'.

Page 3
"In regular intervals the public was and is informed about the progress in the Ötzi-research. So also in an older newspaper article in «Der Landbote» of July 26, 2001. Under the title «Killed by an arrow» new theories are explained:
The Landbote 26.7.2001
The secret around ‹Ötzis› death is solved: The Glacier man was struck down by an arrow 5300 years ago.

BOLZANO. The Glacier man ‹Ötzi› didn’t die because of an accident or by exhaustion, as previously thought, but succumbed to a wound by an arrow. That was declared yesterday by researchers in Bolzano after the analysis of computer tomography. On of the researchers, Eduard Egarter Vigl said that the arrowhead of flint had entered through ‹Ötzi’s› left shoulder blade. His left arm was paralyzed by the injury and he must have had severe internal bleeding. The angle of entry indicates that he was shot at from below."


And to show that Meier too was informed about it by ET, Ptaah, he provides information from Contact Report 347 (allegedly occurred between Meier & Ptaah on Tuesday, August 19, 2003) on page 4 of his article. See below.

"Ptaah:
......
8. Urk really wasn’t involved in the fight, as it was also the case with his companions, and he was not murdered, because in reality he lost his life through an unlucky fall because of an epileptic fit. One of the arrows that he had taken from the dead ones pierced his body, and he was left to his fate by his companions, from whom several had also lost their lives in the storm. That’s the real truth regarding Urk’s death."


This clearly shows HGL citing the ARROW information in verse 8 of CR 347, 2003 in order to connect it to the ARROW discovery made by scientists in July, 2001. If the ARROW part has already been published in SKB 13 book in 1996 or years leading up to year 2001 or in any other publication or at least if the FIGU CG members were already informed about it before the discovery, we would have seen HGL citing SKB 13 or other sources instead of just the information from Contact Report 347 which was for the first time published in FIGU Bulletin 47, April 2004, in book form in SKB 18 in 2004 and later in PPKB 9, 2007. This obviously supports the hypothesis forwarded by us in Part 1.

What's more ?

HGL on the same page 4, concludes his article as follows:

"Off course, also in this, voices are raised by the FIGU critics, who doubt ‹Billy› E. A. Meier’s (BEAM) contacts with the Plejaren and out of principle accuse him of lies and deceit. However, also in this case it is to be considered that the discovery of the Glacier man in September 1991 was already announced by Ptaah four months in advance, namely in May 1991, and was documented by ‹Billy› E. A. Meier in the contact reports. This fact alone basically deserves the attention of unbiased scientists, who otherwise neglect an invaluable source and let it dry up with the rubble of doubt, disregard, condescension and scientific arrogance. Nevertheless for sure the prediction of the case of the Glacier man Urk will one day contribute to the evidence for the real contacts of ‹Billy› Eduard A. Meier (BEAM) to the extraterrestrial human beings and members of the Plejaren Federation."

HGL says that the unbiased scientists should pay attention to the "fact" that Meier "documented" the information on Ice man in his Contact Reports after he was informed by Ptaah in May 1991, 4 months before Ice man's corpse was discovered in Sep 19, 1991.

But so far we have seen that there is no evidence at all to back up HGL's claim that Meier has published the information on Ice man before the discovery of corpse was made by hikers on Sep 19, 1991. Nor has HGL ever provided any evidence about Meier's documentation before the above said date, to back up his claims.

Important Questions to ponder:
  1. How can one consider it as evidence of Meier's contacts with ETs, when the information was only published after the discovery was made by hikers of Ice man's corpse on Sep 19, 1991 ?  
  2. Why would "unbiased scientists" pay attention to Meier's information on Ice man when he only published it after the discovery was already known world-wide ?
  3. What does he mean by "documented by ‹Billy› E. A. Meier in the contact reports" ?
  4. What is the logic behind FIGU Core Group member, Hans George Lanzendorfer's conclusions ?
From our research, we have shown that there is no evidence at all to support HGL's claims. Despite having zero evidence, HGL made many extraordinary claims and verbally insulted & attacked scientists for not paying attention to Meier's information. Is the so far documented evidence published by FIGU members & Michael Horn on Meier's prophetic and predictive corroborations. follow the same logic, one might wonder!

I have written to HGL, the following questions about these issues on September 26, 2014 in facebook and so far got no response, even though he read it on the same day shortly after I sent him the message. We will definitely update you on this whenever HGL responds to our questions.

Lieber Hans,

In Figu Bulletin 47 (http://www.figu.org/ch/verein/periodika/bulletin/2004/nr-47/gletschermann-oetzi) schreibst du über ’den Eismann Fall’:

“Natürlich werden auch hier wieder wie vor annähernd elf Jahren die Stimmen der FIGU Kritiker/innen laut, die ‹Billy› E. A. Meiers (BEAM) Kontakte zu den Plejaren bezweifeln und ihn aus Prinzip der Lüge und des Betruges bezichtigen. Es bleibt jedoch auch in diesem Fall zu bedenken, dass die Auffindung des Gletschermannes im September 1991 bereits vier Monate zuvor, so nämlich im Mai 1991 von Ptaah bekanntgegeben und in den Kontakt-Berichten von ‹Billy› E. A. Meier dokumentiert wurde. Allein diese Tatsache verdient im Grunde genommen die Aufmerksamkeit unvoreingenommener Wissenschaftler/innen, die im gegenteiligen Falle eine unschätzbar wertvolle Quelle brachliegen lassen und diese mit dem Schutt von Zweifeln, Missachtung, Besserwisserei und wissenschaftlicher Überheblichkeit zum Versiegen bringen. Mit Sicherheit trägt jedoch letztendlich auch die Voraussage im Falle des Gletschermannes Urk eines Tages zur Beweisführung in Sachen wahrlicher Kontakte von ‹Billy› Eduard A. Meier (BEAM) zu den ausserirdischen Menschen und Mitgliedern der plejarischen Föderation bei.“

Diesbezüglich habe ich die folgende Fragen:

1) Wie kann man ’den Eismann Fall’ betrachten als Beweis für Meiers Kontakte mit Ausserirdischen, wenn die Informationen nur veröffentlicht wurden, nachdem die Entdeckung des Eismannes von Wanderern gemacht wurde?

2) Weshalb sollten unvoreingenommener Wissenschaftler/innen achten auf Meiers Informationen bezüglich des Eismannes, wenn er es nur erst veröffentlichte nachdem die Entdeckungen weltweit bekannt gemacht wurden?

3) Kannst du irgendwelche Beweise verschaffen, dass Meier tatsächlich Informationen bezüglich des Eismannes dokumentiert hat, bevor die Entdeckung des Eismannes am 19. September 1991?

 

3. My personal correspondence with the press office of South Tyrol Museum of Archaeology UFO-Nachrichten

The following correspondence in the years 2011 & 2014, further supports the hypothesis that was put
forward in Part 1.

from: karumudi mahesh chowdary <mahigitam@gmail.com>
to: museum@iceman.it, jamesmdeem@yahoo.com, info@eurac.edu
date: Sun, Dec
11, 2011 at 7:41 PM
subject: Swiss Man's Prediction on the Discovery of Ice Man in 1991

Dear Sir,


I, mahesh Karumudi from India, have been following the findings on Ice Man since 2001. The reason I am writing to you is because of the information present in the following website.
http://www.theyfly.com/newsflash91/5100_year_old_man.htm
Long story short, a Swiss person by name Eduard Meier has published information in May 1991 about the discovery of Ice Man and also upon the caus
e of death & much other important information. If we put aside how he knew that, I thought the content present in his text would be very useful for scientists/experts working on Ice Man research. Important information present in Meier's text include:

1- Discovery of Ice Man

2- Death due to arrow

3- Fallen from a height due to epileptic fit
4- clothes & other articles

All this information is published some decades before our experts founded it.

If you know any person who is in-charge of the research, would you please forward their contact address. I would like to contact them personally & share them the information.

Sincerely
mahigitam




from: Katharina Hersel <Katharina.Hersel@iceman.it>
to: "mahigitam@gmail.com" <mahigitam@gmail.com>
date: Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 4:42 PM
subject: AW: Swiss Man's Prediction on the Discovery of Ice Man in 1991



Dear Mr. Karumudi,

thank you for your eMail.
We are yet in contact with URK. These informations are yet in the Iceman archive of the EURAC Institute for mummies and the Iceman and thus known to the scientists.

Kindest regards,
Katharina Hersel M.A.
Press office

from: karumudi mahesh chowdary <mahigitam@gmail.com>
to: Katharina Hersel <Katharina.Hersel@iceman.it>
date: Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 6:34 PM
subject: Re: Swiss Man's Prediction on the Discovery of Ice Man in 1991
Hi Katharina,

Thank you very much for replying so soon. Unfortunately I could not get the actual meaning of your words. Do you mean to say that the article that I sent you, has already been sent to EURAC Institute for mummies earlier(by others)?

Is the information present in the article that I sent you already known to the experts working on IceMan Project ?

Sincerely
mahigitam


from: Katharina Hersel <Katharina.Hersel@iceman.it>
to: karumudi mahesh chowdary <mahigitam@gmail.com>
date: Tue, Dec 13, 2011 at 5:57 PM
subject: AW: Swiss Man's Prediction on the Discovery of Ice Man in 1991

Dear Mr. Karumundi,

the editor of www.ufo-nachrichten.de (UFO news) sends us regularly his updates.
Every information about the Iceman is integrated in the Iceman Database which will go online in 2012 or 2013.
At the moment the information is not online but it is in the archive of the Iceman Institute.

Best regards,
Katharina Hersel


from: karumudi mahesh chowdary <mahigitam@gmail.com>
to: Katharina Hersel <Katharina.Hersel@iceman.it.getnotify.com>
date: Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 12:11 PM
subject: Re: Swiss Man's Prediction on the Discovery of Ice Man in 1991

Hello Katharina,

Is it possible to access the information on Ice Man(published by Billy Meier), sent to you by the editor of www.ufo-nachrichten.de (UFO news) ? I could not find any information on your website.

Please refer to the earlier conversation for context.

Salome
Mahesh Karumudi


from: Katharina Hersel <Katharina.Hersel@iceman.it>
to: karumudi mahesh chowdary <mahigitam@gmail.com>
date: Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 12:38 PM
subject: AW: Swiss Man's Prediction on the Discovery of Ice Man in 1991

Dear Mahesh,

thank you for your eMail.
We did not get any more the news of the website Ufo-Nachrichten nor would we request them. Please contact the website editor of www.ufo-nachrichten.de
The Iceman Database is not yet online (perhaps in 2015). There will be no details to a prediction but the information that there are people who suggest a prediction and the link to the website you mentioned before.

Regarding to many archaeological and biological facts that in the meantime could been cleared, the prediction seems very imaginative.

Kindest regards,
Katharina Hersel


from: karumudi mahesh chowdary <mahigitam@gmail.com>
to: Katharina Hersel <Katharina.Hersel@iceman.it.getnotify.com>
date: Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 1:21 PM
subject: Re: Swiss Man's Prediction on the Discovery of Ice Man in 1991

Dear Katharina,

Thank you for responding soon!

The link on Ice man Prediction by Meier, was only published online since 2008. So if you have received mails from people or UFO groups directing to the above website only after 2008, then its not a prediction at all since scientists already knew that the ARROW killed Ice man in 2001.

I thought you received the mails on Billy Meier's prediction of ARROW, before 2001. Now you confirmed that you only received the mails after 2008. Once again thank you very much for clarification.

Salome
Mahesh Karumudi


I contacted the editor of UFO-Nachrichten as per Katharina's suggestion, but got no response.

from: karumudi mahesh chowdary <mahigitam@gmail.com>
to: forster@ufo-nachrichten.de.getnotify.com
date: Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 12:21 PM
subject: Did Billy Meier predicted Ice Mans death by ARROW in 1996 ?

Dear Werner,

I am Mahesh from India, and have recently read this article by Billy Meier's representative in America, Michael Horn; where he says that Meier had predicted & published that the ice man was killed by ARROW in Semjase-Kontakt-Berichte Band 13 in 1996; 5 years before scientists had discovered the arrow in 2001.

When contacted Katharina Hersel, press office at South Tyrol Musuem in Dec 2011, she said that they have received the information on Billy Meier's prediction on 'ARROW killed ice man' from your organisation. So now I would like to request you sir to clarify this matter.

  1. Is it true that Meier had predicted and published the 'death of ice man by ARROW' in Semjase-Kontakt-Berichte Band 13 which was published in 1996 ?
  2. And did you send this information to South Tyrol Museum in 1996 or before the ARROW was discovered by scientists in 2001 ?
Regards
Mahesh Karumudi


Conclusion:

From both Part 1 (2 reasons) & Part 2 (3 reasons), we have provided a total of 5 reasons (listed below), why Christian's claim that his SKB 13 with ARROW part was from 1996 year, is unlikely to be true.  
  1. No practical reason to publish ARROW in some SKBs and not publish in other SKBs
  2. No mention of ARROW in several other publications
  3. Correspondence with FIGU Core Group member Elisabeth Moosbrugger
  4. FIGU Core Group member Hans George Lanzendorfer's article in FIGU Bulletin 47, April 2004
  5. Correspondence with the press office of South Tyrol Museum of Archaeology

Note:
In the next Part 3/4, I will present my analysis on the following information published by Meier on Ice man's - original habitat, age of Ötzi , border dispute between Austria-Italy, age of Ötzi's corpse and in Part 4/4, I will discuss the Iceman's other causes of death and the events leading up to his death.

(will be continued in Part 3/4)