Wednesday, October 22, 2014

The Meria Heller Show (Oct 21, 2014): Interview with Michael Horn



Meria interviews Michael Horn, American Media Representative for Billy Meier on his latest film “He Warned The People, And Did They Listen?“. Let Michael know you are a listener with”Meria” in your order and get a 2nd movie free; Who is Billy Meier? visited since he was 5 years old (77 now);humans in another star system; why suppressed? Classic UFO daytime photos/videos; 26,000 published papers; prophetically accurate information 50 yrs earlier; 22 attempts on his life;info could be destabilizing to the controllers; suicidal success for planet Earth? Henoch Prophecies; can prophecies be prevented?1951 prophecies (happened); 1958-computers, cell phones,AIDS and more. Predictions different than prophecies;ebola epidemic predicted;2 coming US civil wars? Will there be WW3? is their collusion between aliens and governments? holograms in use; climate change; HAARP’s damage;militaristic insanity;religious delusions;Plejarens; 800 yrs of difficulties? Obama; Mothers of the millennium; and much more.

Source: Meria.net

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)