Thursday, October 30, 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 4/4)

(continued from Part 3/4)

In this 4th & the final part, we shall discuss:
  1. Causes of Ötzi's death
  2. Events leading up to Ötzi's death 
  3. Response from FIGU Core Group member 
1. CAUSES OF ÖTZI'S DEATH:

The following excerpts are taken from respective sources:

CR 238, May 18, 1991, pg. 2539 of Semjase-Kontakt-Berichte Vol 13 (as being provided in Michael Horn's article):

Ptaah:
574. His death happened at that time in such a way that he fell (Note by CF: not just from standing to the ground, but some distance down) – caused by an epileptic fit –and was severely injured by one of his own arrows when he fell on his back, just at the moment when a primeval ice storm started.
575. As a member of a group of 14 persons who had camped there in the mountains, he was left laying on the ground because of his critical injury. Since the remaining 13 human beings were fully occupied with saving their own lives, they did not care for him.
576. Nevertheless, not all of them survived, as several of them died in the ice needle storm.
577. The storm covered the mountains under (a) thick (layer of) ice, and in it the corpse of the “fallen one” remained mummified and preserved until today; so it (he? the corpse) will be found this year around the 20th of September by a mountain hiker, together with his equipment, like clothes and weapons, etc.


CR 347, August 19, 2003, pgs. 36-37, Plejadisch-plejarische Kontaktberichte Block 9 (as being provided in Michael Horn's article):

Ptaah:
8. ..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.


We shall now discuss the two causes of death of Ötzi which according to Meier's Rep. Michael Horn, was allegedly published by Meier before scientists discovered the causes.

(a) Head Trauma
(b) Arrow

(a) Head Trauma:

As you can see from the above excerpts from Contact Reports 238 & 347, the only reason ET told Meier, on the death of Ice man was due to the arrow (he was carrying on him) that has pierced his "back", when he fell from some height. In Part 1/4 and Part 2/4, we have shown that this cause of death - ARROW - was only added later in FIGU publications after the arrow was discovered by scientists in year 2001.

But Billy Meier's Rep. Michael Horn published an article - National Geographic Article, New Science Journal Study Confirm Billy Meier Information on Prehistoric Humans - on August 30, 2011, where he states the following:

"Articles published in National Geographic magazine and the journal Science confirm information first published by Swiss prophet Billy Meier years before. In 2002, National Geographic reported that scientific testing, done a year early, at an Italian hospital determined the cause of death of the 5,100 year-old Iceman. The mummy, called Otzi by the scientists because of the region in the Austrian Alps in which it was discovered, had an arrowhead lodged in its back, leading the scientists to conclude that the cause of death was murder at the hands of others.

In 2007, National Geographic updated their information in the second article they published on the story, adding that a head wound had contributed to the circumstances causing the Iceman’s death.
Meier had already Published BOTH Causes.
However, Billy Meier had already twice published the information pertaining to the discovery, and circumstances accounting for the death, of the Iceman, first in1991 and then in again in 1996.

According to Michael Horn, Meier’s American media representative, “Meier’s publication with the copyright date of 1996 eliminates any possibility of backdating. It’s five years before ‘official discovery’ of the arrowhead and 11 years before the head injury was added to the official causes of death. Scientists recently discovered a stony platform some 20 feet above where the mummy was found. The newly confirmed head injury is completely consistent with what Meier was told by the extraterrestrial who gave him the information. It plainly states that the man fell – very hard since the German word used means to crash – and that he landed on his back and on his arrow. Let’s also remember that a broken arrow was also found near his body."

Horn added, “Is there some magical way that a man falling that hard, presumably from some height, and landing on his back in a rocky region DOESN'T hit and injure his head, and quite severely at that? And with all of the possible ways a person could die, 5,100 years ago in a cold, rugged mountainous region, how did Meier know it was from a fall and an… arrow – which scientists confirmed all of these centuries later?”"


Sounds like a non sequitur, isn't it ?

Michael Horn draws the connection between Meier's published information (since Jan 1992 in SWZ Nr.79/2) that Ice man fell from some height and the results of the 2007 analysis, where it says that the severe head trauma added to the lethal arrowhead wound in the shoulder that killed Ötzi, despite Meier or FIGU having never mentioned this as the cause of death in any of their publications in all these years. ETs/Plejaren would certainly have mentioned the head trauma as being another cause of death during their own "investigation" but they didn't and instead they have just mentioned ARROW as the only cause of death.

Despite this major objection, FIGU Passive member & Meier case Rep. Michael Horn insists otherwise, which apparently is just pure speculation. The lack of any mention (in FIGU publications) of consequences from Ice man's fall (head trauma) until after the scientific results came out in 2007 and the later addition of ARROW cause only after scientists discovered it in 2001, further supports the null hypothesis.

(b) Arrow:

Meier/ETs have said that Ice man fell on one of his "own" arrows that pierced his body when he fell due to an epileptic fit just at the moment when a primeval ice storm started.

What do the scientists & experts say on how the ARROW pierced Ötzi's body ?

The leading scientific theory is that the arrow was fired upon by an attacker(s) with whom Ötzi had a violent fight shortly before his death & who has/have been chasing him. Following are some of the points that supports the theory of a violent attack rather than a self-inflicted wound.

1. Unfinished & broken equipment
Critical parts of the Ice Man's equipment were in extremely poor shape or missing altogether. This supports the theory that Otzi was involved in a violent fight with other humans shortly before his death and has fled from his village in a hurry.
  • Quiver: The supporting strut for the quiver had already been broken in three during Ötzi’s lifetime.
  • Bow: Clear traces of carving on the surface – expertly and carefully executed axe cuts – show that the bow was still unfinished. On prehistoric bows the bowstring is usually attached to one end of the bow by means of a loop and bound at the other end. But Ötzi's bow has no sign of a bowstring.
  • Arrows: 12 unfinished arrow shafts and 2 finished but broken arrows with flint arrow heads. See the image of 14 arrows under point 8.
2. Wounds

Ötzi's right hand showing deep cut at the base of his thumb finger
Ötzi suffered deep wounds on his right hand and wrist suggesting that the Iceman was involved in hand-to-hand combat hours or days before his death. A few centimeters below the arrow entry wound, scientists have detected an additional small discoloration of the skin, which was probably caused by a blow from a blunt object. This supports the theory that Otzi was involved in a violent fight before his death.

3. Dagger
Ötzi was found holding a dagger in his right hand (when his corpse was discovered in 1991) suggesting that the killer was close and he was trying to defend himself. Why would a person hold a dagger in his hand until his death, if he fell on an arrow (that caused a laceration to the artery, which would cause massive bleeding and cardiac arrest) and die within minutes after the arrowhead struck ?

4. Head Trauma
Watch this History channel documentary - Death of the Ice man - aired in 2008 to understand why there is abundant evidence to support the murder theory. Between 18:14 min to 18:40 min, the narrator says the following on the likely source of head trauma :

at 18:46 min
"Scientists have compelling new evidence to suggest that the attacker may have finished the Iceman off with a final blow to his head. Basically we see a major head trauma. It's hard to tell whether its deadly or not. The extent, the shape, the location looks more like it would have been caused by an active blow rather than just by a passive fall of the body."

But some other scientists seems to maintain that it's not conclusive whether Ötzi's brain injury was caused by being bashed over the head or by falling after being struck with the arrow.
 
5. Arrow wound
Again between 19:15 min to 19:32 min of the same documentary, the narrator says the following regarding the structure of arrow wound, suggesting that it was actively removed by the enemy:

at 19:34 min
 "The realization that someone pulled the arrow out of the Iceman's back came from another medical revelation. The high definition CT scans showed that the arrow point had been forcefully retracted from the pierced artery."

6. Prehistoric hunting technique
The following is from a National Geographic article - Iceman Mystery - published in July 2007:

"This new medical evidence suggests that an attacker, positioned behind and below his victim, fired a single arrow that struck the Iceman's left shoulder blade—precisely the area at which prehistoric hunters aimed to bring down game (Note: 'game' means wild mammals or birds hunted for sport or food) with one shot. The arrow went clean through the bone and pierced the artery. Blood instantly began to gush out, filling the space between the shoulder blade and the ribs. In his few remaining minutes of life, the Iceman became a textbook case of what is now known as hemorrhagic shock. His heart started to race. Sweat drenched his garments, even at an altitude two miles (three kilometers) above sea level. He felt increasingly faint because not enough oxygen was reaching his brain. In a matter of a few minutes, the Iceman collapsed, lost consciousness, and bled out."

7. Unusal position of Ötzi's corpse


Ötzi was found in a strange position with his stomach on the ground, leaning over a rock & face-down. At 18:50 min of the same 2008 documentary, the experts - Frank Rühli (paleopathologist) & Albert Zink (biological anthropologist) reenacts how this strange position could have come about - (killer) taking Iceman's right arm and rolling him towards his left side, in order to pull out the arrow shaft from his body.

8. Missing arrow shaft
The following excerpt is also from the same National Geographic article - Iceman Mystery - published in July 2007:

""I believe—in fact, I am convinced—that the person who shot the Iceman with the arrow is the same person who pulled it out," says Egarter Vigl (Note: chief pathologist at General Regional Hospital in Bolzano). In an article that appeared this May in the German archaeology magazine Germania, Egarter Vigl and his colleagues noted that telltale markings in the construction of prehistoric arrows could be used to identify the archer much in the way that modern-day ballistics can link a bullet to a gun. They argue that the Iceman's killer yanked out the arrow shaft precisely to cover his tracks. For similar motives, Egarter Vigl reasons, the attacker did not run off with any of the precious artifacts that remained at the scene, especially the distinct copper-bladed ax; the appearance of such a remarkable object in the possession of a villager would automatically implicate its owner in the crime."

Michael Horn writes the following in his article:

"And this sentence, also from http://www.mummytombs.com/otzi/scientific.htm, could even indicate that the arrow that killed him was found broken nearby, though it can’t be said with certainty:

“Specifically, they took samples from the Iceman's antler-skinning tool, his stone-tipped knife, two of his arrows (one broken), his axe handle, and his goatskin coat.”"

It turns out that it is not one arrow that is broken but two arrows. And moreover, the word "broken" was perhaps misunderstood by Michael. The word doesn't necessarily imply that a part of the arrow i.e., either the arrowhead or shaft is totally missing. Michael is assuming that scientists have found the arrow shaft near the Iceman's corpse, whose arrowhead had pierced the Iceman's left shoulder; which of course is incorrect. In this context, the word 'broken' just means that what it means, which is that the two arrows are broken i.e. each arrow is disjoint/broke at some place on its continuous body and no part of it is either missing or lost. In the below image, we can see all the 14 arrows contained in the quiver, only two of which had feathers and flint arrowheads attached, but these two were broken; and the rest are unfinished and untipped. No part of these 14 arrows is missing or lost.

© South Tyrol Museum of Archaeology

9. Discarded self-inflicted arrow-wound theory
Now we will present some excerpts from different sources on why the self-inflicted arrow wound theory is rejected by scientists

Following is an excerpt from an article - Gewalttat im Gletscher: Wer hat Ötzi auf dem Gewissen? - published in Spiegel Online on July 26, 2001:

"“Ötzi certainly died a violent death,” says Eduard Egarter, the pathologist involved in the discovery. That the Glacier man, exhausted from the arduous scramble, collapsed on his own arrow is ruled out by Egarter and his colleagues: “We were able to refute this theory.” Also a hunting accident is also considered unlikely by the scientists."

Following is an excerpt from 2003 article on the conclusion reached by Thomas Loy, an archaeologist and molecular biologist at the University of Queensland, Australia. He suggests that the arrowhead must have been removed by another person (a companion, he speculates).

"Loy, who is an expert on prehistoric tools and weapons, concluded that Ötzi could not have removed the arrow from his back by himself."

Vittorio Brizzi, a physicist and mathematician, works in computational archaeology and experimental archaeology at the University of Ferrara, Italy. He is a flintknapper and primitive bowhunter since 1985. He wrote the following in his paper - Otzi, the Iceman: Murder victim, thaws out but whodunit and why ? - published in year 2005:

"The second proposition is of an accidentally self-inflicted wound; the possibility that Otzi was accidentally hurt by one of his own arrows appears to be extremely remote in my opinion. As an archer and hunter it seems to be absolute fantasy that an accidental arrow can perforate a thick fur jacket, shatter the shoulder blade and then deeply penetrate the shoulder muscles, finding itself in the position it was when the body was detected. Fanciful, even if it were virtually possible. Experience shows that a modern hunting arrow (and those flint arrow heads were certainly no less effective) can be dangerous if badly handled. A flight from a position in a tree (falls from tree-stands are the most common cause of hunting accidents) with the arrow nocked, ready to be shot, can certainly be dangerous, but likening this scenario of the Iceman seems decidedly hazardous and it would be the first case of this kind due to its characteristics."

Arrowhead design:
Ötzi's arrows
Model of the arrowhead embedded in Ötzi's back
Now, we are going to present a couple of excerpts from news articles that talks about the difference in design between the arrowhead that was lodged in Iceman's back and the two arrowheads that were attached to the two arrows, found in Iceman's quiver. This, scientists suggests, adds further support to the theory that Ötzi must have been killed by his enemy, and so by the enemies arrow.

Following is an excerpt from an article - For 5,300-Year-Old Iceman, Extra Autopsy Tells the Tale - published in New York Times in August 7, 2001:

"...Egarter Vigl and Dr. Gostner (chief radiologist at the Bolzano hospital)..Neither man believes the Iceman could have injured himself by falling on an arrow...Dr. Annaluisa Pedrotti, an archaeologist at the University of Trento...said the..type of arrowhead in the Iceman's body appears to differ very little from two arrowheads found in his quiver."

Below is an excerpt from an article - Wanderer entdecken Eismann - published in Sep 20, 2011:

“They believe that the Ice man was killed during a warlike, militant confrontation. This is also suggested by the fact that the arrowheads that have been found near Ötzi have a different design from the one in the back of the stone age man. Therefore they could come from his pursuers.”

Conclusion #1:
In this section, we have shown that despite Meier's Rep. Michael Horn's corroboration claim, there is no evidence at all to suggest that Meier/ETs presented the Head Trauma as one of the causes of Iceman's death. Also we have presented abundant evidence (9 reasons), that outright rejects the self-inflicted arrow-wound scenario which according to Meier/ETs, lead to the death of Ötzi.


2. Events leading up to Ötzi's death:

We shall now discuss the various events leading up to Ötzi's death. Information on Ötzi in Contact Report 347 starts with Meier showing ET-Ptaah, an article - Ötzis letzte Stunden (Ötzi's last hours) - from the Zurich newspaper (Tages-Anzeiger) that was published on the same day as the day of the contact that allegedly occurred between Meier & ET i.e. on Tuesday, August 19, 2003. The following is a rough English translation of some excerpts from that article.

"The Iceman has fought valiantly before his death – a new study says.

Rome. – Ötzi, a peaceful hunter? Probably not. The story around the legendary Iceman discovered in the alps and since then exhibited in Bolzano, has been enriched by another enlightening chapter. This is due to an Australian researcher: Tom Loy of the Brisbane University, who has recently presented the results of his DNA studies. Loy found traces of blood from at least six different contemporaries on the clothes and weapons of Ötzi. That proves, according to Loy, that the good old Iceman was involved in close combat at 3,200 meters altitude, shortly before his death...

The Australian Loy now musters this thesis additionally with spicy details about Ötzi's presumed fight to the death. They throw a bad light on the interpersonal practices of our alpine ancestors from the Stone Age. And on the contemporaries of Ötzi."


Highlights of the article:
  • Traces of human blood discovered on clothes and weapons of Ötzi
  • These blood traces belong to at least 6 different persons (other than Ötzi)
What did ET say after reading this article ?

Ptaah: (reads the article)
4. Really astonishing what those specialists have found out, but the supposition, that Urk has been involved in a fight, is not in line with the facts.
5. Truth is that Urk, together with his 13 comrades and in the Oetztal Mountains, was observing a fight to the death between six human beings of two rivalling groups or tribes, respective, who were killing one another.
6. When they were dead or dying, Urk and his companions come forth from their hiding-place and were unsuccessfully caring for the dying, and during this process Urk and also his companions were besmirched with the blood of the critically injured.
7. And since Urk’s weapons were quite battered from the many years of use, he took parts of the weapons and also of the garment of those, who had already died, and of those, who were dying under his and his companions’ hands.
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.


Highlights of the Contact Report 347:
  1. ET-Ptaah totally acknowledges the scientific findings but disagrees with the scientist's hypothesis on the background story
  2. Ötzi (& his 13 comrades) were never involved in any fight before his death but just were watching 6 people from 2 rival tribes killing each other
  3. Ötzi took parts of the weapons & a coat from among the 6 dead or dying people
  4. Traces of blood found on Ötzi's weapons & clothes, belongs to 6 different dead or dying people
  5. Ötzi fell (from a height due to an epileptic fit) on one of the stolen arrows & later lost his life
Now let us analyse just the three important claims (points 2, 3 & 4) made by ET-Ptaah after reading the 2003 newspaper article.

2. Ötzi (& his 13 comrades) were never involved in any fight before his death but just were watching 6 people from 2 rival tribes killing each other

In Section 1 under the 'Causes of Ötzi's death-Arrow', we have already presented many lines of evidence supporting the theory that Ötzi was involved in a fight a few hours or days before his death. So the claim that Ötzi was never involved in any fight seems incorrect. Also we have shown in section 1, the claim that - the cause of his death being a self-inflicted arrow wound (occurred due to a fall) - seems to be incorrect as well. 

Though it is not virtually impossible, but the death of all the involved six fighters from 2 rival gangs fighting each other, sounds cliche & reminds oneself of the scenes from old Hollywood Cowboy movies.

3. Ötzi took parts of the weapons & a coat from among the 6 dead or dying people

The main objection to the claim that Ötzi took parts of the weapons from the 6 dead or dying persons is the condition of the weapons that were found along with Ötzi's corpse. In Point #1 under 'Causes of Ötzi's death-Arrow', we have shown that the weapons & equipment like bow, most of the arrows & quiver were either unfinished or broken - meaning they are useless in combat & the person(s) using them would most certainly die in a fight with an enemy who has finished weapons.
  • Why would anyone carry 12 unfinished arrows to a fierce fight that lead to their & their groups death ?
  • Why would anyone carry an unfinished bow that also has no sign of bowstring to a fierce fight that lead to their & their groups death ?
  • Why would anyone carry a quiver whose supporting strut was broken in three to a fierce fight that lead to their & their groups death ?
One could argue in many ways to counter this major objection. For example, it could be argued that perhaps the persons involved in the battle actually used only finished weapons (bow, arrows,..etc) or other finished weapons (like axe, dagger,..etc); and that the unfinished weapons were only brought along in case when the already finished weapons becomes damaged or lost. Still another variation is that one unsuspecting group with unfinished weapons from one tribe were ambushed by the enemies from another tribe. 

4. Traces of blood found on Ötzi's weapons & clothes, belongs to the 6 different dead or dying people

All the information in the Contact Report 347 on the topic of Ötzi, is actually provided in the form of a response by ET-Ptaah after reading the newspaper article which was pointed out to him by Meier. After reading the newspaper article, Ptaah completely acknowledges all the scientific findings (see CR 347, verse 4) but rejects the 'battle theory' (in which Ötzi gets involved in the fight) as was speculated by the Australian scientists. Instead, later in the contact report, Ptaah provides the "real" background story or facts behind the following scientific claims as was reported in that newspaper article.
  • Traces of human blood discovered on clothes and weapons of Ötzi
  • These blood traces belong to at least 6 different persons (other than Ötzi)
As it turns out, both of the claims were proven to be absolutely wrong!

First, the number of individuals (other than Ötzi) whose blood traces were discovered on weapons and clothing is not '6' but just '4'. We have checked many articles from around the same time (August 2003) as the newspaper article (Tages-Anzeiger) which was read, acknowledged & commented upon by ET. And in all of them, the number of individual blood traces was said to be '4' and not '6'. For example read this Der Spiegel (Aug 13, 2003) & National Geographic (Oct 30, 2003) articles. Apparently, the author of the Tages-Anzeiger article seems to have made an error on the number of different individuals blood traces.

IT IS NOT ALL!

As it turns out in later investigations conducted in 2008 by the scientists from Bolzano’s EURAC Institute for Mummies and the Iceman, they didn't at all find & could not confirm - any traces of blood belonging to '4' different individuals on the weapons and equipment as was mentioned in the 2003 sensational findings! Read these original German articles from August 2008 - No human blood on the ax of ÖtziÖtzi rehabilitated. A rough English translation of the above two articles was also made available here & here respectively. You can also read the same information from other newspaper articles - TageszeitungSüdtirol aktuell - at around the same time (July-Aug 2008).

The first two online German articles from 2008 however speak of blood traces being found on Ötzi's coat, grass mat & even on the arrow shaft. And the scientists attribute the likely sources of these blood traces as follows:

Blood on Coat - Ötzi
Blood on Grass mat - Ötzi
Blood on Arrow shaft - Animals

In order to verify whether the scientists actually did confirm the above likely sources of blood traces, I have written directly to Prof. Dr.Albert Zink, Head of Institute of Mummies & the Iceman, EURAC. Here is our correspondence.

from: karumudi mahesh chowdary <mahigitam@gmail.com>
to: Zink Albert <Albert.Zink@eurac.edu>
cc: Katharina Hersel <Katharina.Hersel@iceman.it>,
     James Deem <jamesmdeem@yahoo.com>
date: Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 11:38 AM
subject: Source of Otzi's blood on his coat & grass mat

Dear Prof. Zink,

My name is Mahesh Karumudi, an independent skeptic from India. Lately as a part of my research, I have been looking into the Otzi's case. I have noticed that in 2008, it was said that the 2003 analysis made by Tom Loy, an Archaeologist from the Australian university Brisbane was not correct, as the blood traces (speculated to be from four different individuals) could not be found on the tools. But it was said that traces of blood was found on Otzi's coat and grass mat. And suggested that the future research will reveal the source of these traces of blood.

Now, I would like to know, whether this research has been done and the source of blood was revealed (animal or Otzi's or other person) ?

I searched online but could not find any research papers on it. Kindly point me out if this research already has been done.

Regards
Mahesh Karumudi
India

from: Zink Albert <Albert.Zink@eurac.edu>
to: karumudi mahesh chowdary <mahigitam@gmail.com>
date: Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 12:49 PM
subject: Re: Source of Otzi's blood on his coat & grass mat

Dear Mahesh Karumudi,

You are right, we started a re-analysis of the Iceman's tools and equipment in 2008 and we found differences of the distribution of blood spots compared to the work of Tom Loy.
After the first detection of blood traces on the Iceman's coat and grass mat we experienced some methodological problems to further analyze the blood stains. Early this year we finally could solve these issues and we are currently analyzing the blood traces. We have first indications that it is his own blood, but we are waiting for a final confirmation. Up to now, we haven't published our findings, but we hope to publish the results as soon as possible.

I hope this information helps you.

Best,
Albert Zink

from: karumudi mahesh chowdary <mahigitam@gmail.com>
to: Zink Albert <Albert.Zink@eurac.edu>
bcc: Katharina Hersel <Katharina.Hersel@iceman.it>,
     James Deem <jamesmdeem@yahoo.com>
date: Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 1:54 PM
subject: Re: Source of Otzi's blood on his coat & grass mat

Dear Prof. Zink,

This information really helped us a lot, Mr. Zink.
There is one more thing which I forgot to include in my earlier mail. Sorry for that.
In this 2008 article, it mentions traces of blood also being found on the shaft of the arrow during the investigations carried out in 2007. And it was speculated that it could belong to animals.

"Die Untersuchungen des im Jahr 2007 eröffneten Eismann-Instituts an Ötzis Waffen brachten nur geringe Spuren von Blut an einem Schaft ans Tageslicht, und die könnten von Tieren stammen."

Could you please respond to the following queries:
  • Have your recent investigations confirmed this 2007 result or not ?
  • If yes, then may I know, the source (animals or humans ?) of this blood on Otzi's arrow shaft ?
Regards
Mahesh Karumudi
India

from: Zink Albert <Albert.Zink@eurac.edu>
to: karumudi mahesh chowdary <mahigitam@gmail.com>
date: Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 1:58 PM
subject: Re: Source of Otzi's blood on his coat & grass mat

Dear Mahesh Karumudi,

In our recent analysis we are focusing on the Iceman's clothing and the copper axe and knife. We have no new results for the shaft so far.

Best,
Albert Zink

As you can see, Mr. Zink clearly said that the results of the new preliminary investigation suggested that the source of the traces of blood found on the coat and grass mat as belonging to Ötzi. He also noted that they didn't yet investigate the blood found on the arrow shaft, whose likely source was said to be animals, according to the 2008 study.

Was animal blood ever reported to be found on Ötzi's tools ?

YES!

Read these NewScientist articles, Life and times of Otze the hunter - from Feb 5, 1994 and Blood on the axe from Sep 12, 1998 (summary of the findings can be read here). Also more in-depth information is published in this Nov 1998, GEO magazine article - Ötzi's Stone Age Kitchen (English translation of some excerpts can be read here)

Before going into the next section, let us first ponder on a couple of important questions & present what the skeptics would or could argue.

Question #1:

Why would ET/Meier reject the 'battle theory' (Ötzi gets involved in the fight) in CR 347 and instead stick to the self-inflicted arrow-wound theory (SAW) even when the evidence for the murder/battle was published in the media in 2001, 2002 & 2003 ?

Response:
First, the SAW theory was itself newly inserted in the FIGU publications after the discovery of arrowhead was made by scientists in July 2001. Please refer to Part 1/4 & Part 2/4 on this topic. Skeptics would argue that the reason why Meier got stuck to the SAW theory is because Meier already in all earlier FIGU publications (published before 2001), wrote his contact report in a way that restricts the integration of 'battle theory'. For example, Meier wrote this:

Before 2001
574. His death happened at that time in such a way that he fell down because of an epileptic fit and was injured, just when a primeval ice needle storm broke out.

After 2001
574. His death happened at that time in such a way that he fell caused by an epileptic fit – and was severely injured by one of his own arrows when he fell on his back, just at the moment when a primeval ice storm started.

Here skeptics would argue that it would be relatively easy for a number of reasons* to "add/insert" a new story (in new publications) at the end of the already mentioned series of events that starts with Iceman getting an epileptic fit rather than to "add/insert" a new story before the beginning of the already mentioned series of events.
(* draws less attention, less suspicious, story compatibility, plausible deniability,..etc)

A: Epileptic fit → fell from some height → incapacitated from fall injury & died in severe ice storm
B: Epileptic fit → fell form some height → incapacitated from own-arrow injury & died in severe ice storm
C: Battle with enemies shot by enemy's arrowEpileptic fit → fell form some height → incapacitated from arrow injury & died in severe ice storm

As you can see, it is easy* to transform the sentence A into B but not easy* to transform the sentence A or B into C. Moreover, if we just consider sentence C, the chronology of events would suggest that either the epileptic seizure was caused by the arrow shot by enemy or somehow both the seizure and arrow events occurred at exactly the same time causing the Iceman to fall from some height. The former, contradicts what Meier said in earlier publications, which is that there was no clear cause given for Ötzi's epileptic seizure suggesting that it could be due to natural causes (ex: severe cold). And the latter can only be called as a weird "coincidence" (strangely one among the many in the Meier case).

Question #2:

Why would ET/Meier say that Ötzi took some of the weapons & equipment from the "6" dead or dying people and that Ötzi himself was killed by one of these stolen arrows & not by one of his own arrows?

Response:
Since the first publication of information on Ötzi's topic since 1992, it was mentioned in the contact reports that Ötzi's origin was located in the banks of Lake Zurich, Switzerland. So the natural consequence of it is that all of Ötzi's weapons (material & design) and equipment (clothes, types of food,..etc) should match the identity of a person whose origin is Switzerland. So according to skeptics, Meier has no choice but to stick with his Switzerland story. In all earlier publications of Contact Report 238, all the equipment with Ötzi was referred to as "his" suggesting that they all belong to Ötzi.

577. The storm covered the mountains under thick ice, and in it the corpse of the “fallen one” remained mummified and preserved until today; so it will be found this year around the 20th of September by a mountain hiker, together with his equipment, like clothes and weapons, etc.

After the arrow was discovered in Ötzi's body in 2001, the Contact Report 238 was edited to include the new discovery. And in this new edited report too, it was still being mentioned that he was killed by one of his own arrows.

574. His death happened at that time in such a way that he fell caused by an epileptic fit – and was severely injured by one of his own arrows when he fell on his back, just at the moment when a primeval ice storm started.

But one year later in 2002, scientists suggested that the arrowhead lodged in Ötzi's body could only come from "southern alps and in northern Italy" & so it was suggested that the enemy who killed Ötzi should also come from northern Italy. Also the botanist, Klaus Oeggl around the year 2000, "examined the seeds that were found in and on Ötzi and his gear. His conclusion was that all items originated from the south, just like the assassin". Moreover in 2003, traces of blood belonging to "6" different individuals was discovered on Ötzi's axe, dagger, arrow & coat. All these findings obviously contradicts the information contained in the above verses 574 & 577.

What is the best & the easiest way out of all these contradictions ?

Skeptics could argue that Meier by introducing his new story which is that - Ötzi took weapons and equipment from the dead or dying people (who it can be easily suggested would be native to northern Italy) & was also killed by one of these stolen arrows - is able to address all the three contradictions as reported above with one go.

Conclusion #2:
According to skeptics, Meier seems to have shot himself in the foot when proposing the ‘epileptic fit’ story in 1991 which doesn't anymore fit the new evidence regarding the arrow and the blood traces, so he had to come up with an explanation for that while keeping the epileptic fit story intact. So the skeptics argue that the information in the Contact Report 347, is a perfect example demonstrating the null hypothesis that - Meier/FIGU follow the scientific discoveries/findings or any information reported in the newspaper articles, science papers, science magazines,..etc & uses them as the basis for their publication of contact reports.

3. Response from FIGU Core Group member:

In Part 2/4, we have mentioned that we would notify you whenever FIGU Core Group member, Hans George Lanzendorfer responds to our set of questions regarding his Ötzi article published in FIGU Bulletin 47, April 2004. Recently, he sort of responded. Following is our correspondence (rough English translation).

September 26, 2014 (Facebook)

Dear Hans,

In Figu Bulletin 47 (http://www.figu.org/ch/verein/periodika/bulletin/2004/nr-47/gletschermann-oetzi) you write about the ‘Ice man case’:


“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.”


Regarding this I have the following questions:
  1. How can one consider the ‘Ice man case’ as evidence for Meier’s contacts with extraterrestrials, when the information was only published after the Ice man was discovered by hikers?
  2. Why should unbiased scientists pay attention to Meier’s information regarding the ice man, when it was only published after the discoveries were known world wide?
  3. Could you provide any evidence that Meier really documented information regarding the Ice man before the discovery on September 19, 1991?
He finally responded on Facebook on October 3, 2014, 15:30 after I reminded him on the same day at 13:38.

Hans-Georg Lanzendorfer: With my article this topic is closed!

Dumbfounded by his response, I again wrote to HGL in Facebook on October 3, 2014, 22:21, as follows.

Hello Hans,

Why is this topic closed when this article is still available on the internet, and Michael Horn, with the help of Christian Frehner even wrote an article (http://theyfly.com/newsflash91/5100_year_old_man.htm) about it in 2008 and still asserts that ‘the Ötzi case’ is ‘conclusive evidence for the truth of the Billy Meier UFO case’? Why are critical questions regarding the Ice man and similar topics regarding evidence etc. brushed off again and again as unimportant and irrelevant, while at the same time many articles are written about it in which it is obviously considered important? You yourself wrote in 2004 in Bulletin 47 (http://www.figu.org/ch/verein/periodika/bulletin/2004/nr-47/gletschermann-oetzi?page=0,3):

“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.”

Well, when I really wanted to get to the bottom of this, I only find that until now nothing was published by FIGU that was really corroborated after the FIGU publication; and that critical information regarding the age of the Ice man corpse  and the arrow was simply altered or added afterwards according to new scientific findings. And when I wanted to ask questions about that, then you don’t want to answer my questions.

What is the problem? Is it a lack of time? Are my questions too uncomfortable? Are discussions and critical questions regarding the validity of evidence a taboo in FIGU?
Please explain this to me, because this way of dealing with such issues is incomprehensible for me.

To which HGL responded as follows on October 4, 2014, 13:26.

Hans-Georg Lanzendorfer: Ask your questions on the Figu Forum!

Expecting a response, I have posted the same question again on FIGU German forum on October 4, 2014, 18:25. Till today got no response at all from HGL. On October 22, 2014, 16:46, I again posted a new question on the same topic, which again was ignored.

Dear Hans,

In your article - Gletschermann Urk, Häuptling der Suren vom Zürichsee Oder: Wer suchet der Findet - published in Stimme der Wassermannzeit Nr. 88, Jahrgang 19, September 1993, page 11, you claimed that the age of the Iceman-Ötzi as 4105 years and that the scientists were unable to find the true age of the Iceman because they use false scientific interpretations and calculations yielding the wrong value of 5,300 years.

But in your article - Neues vom Gletschermann <urk> der Sure - published in FIGU Bulletin Nr. 47, Jahrgang 10, April 2004, you mention an age of the corpse of 5105 years, without specifying why the age has been changed to a higher value, which by the way in your 1993 article was rejected by you.

Can you explain why the age of the corpse was changed?

Conclusion #3:
It is obvious that FIGU Core Group member, Hans George Lanzendorfer is ducking the critical questions & seems to be distancing himself from his own written articles in which he lashes at scientists and experts for not paying attention to Meier's information; a behavioural response which is not uncommon among a section of FIGU & pro-Meier/FIGU members. How can a community (FIGU) that openly criticizes religions, sects, almost all politicians & scientists,..etc and at the same time promotes values like truth, knowledge, logic, reason,..etc, be so closed to any critical questions regarding their own information ?

CONCLUSIONS

Let us put together all the conclusions we have arrived at so far in this part 4/4.

Conclusion #1:
In this section, we have shown that despite Meier's Rep. Michael Horn's corroboration claim, there is no evidence at all to suggest that Meier/ETs presented the Head Trauma as one of the causes of Iceman's death. Also we have presented abundant evidence (9 reasons), that outright rejects the self-inflicted arrow-wound scenario that, according to Meier/ETs, lead to the death of Ötzi.
Conclusion #2:
According to skeptics, Meier seems to have shot himself in the foot when proposing the ‘epileptic fit’ story in 1991 which doesn't anymore fit the new evidence regarding the arrow and the blood traces, so he had to come up with an explanation for that while keeping the epileptic fit story intact. So the skeptics argue that the information in the Contact Report 347, is a perfect example demonstrating the null hypothesis that - Meier/FIGU follow the scientific discoveries/findings or any information reported in the newspaper articles, science papers, science magazines,..etc & uses them as the basis for their publication of contact reports.

Conclusion #3:
It is obvious that FIGU Core Group member, Hans George Lanzendorfer is ducking the critical questions & distancing himself from his own written articles in which he lashes at scientists and experts for not paying attention to Meier's information; a behavioural response which is not uncommon among FIGU & pro-Meier/FIGU members. How can a community (FIGU) that openly criticizes religions, sects, almost all politicians & scientists,..etc and at the same time promotes values like truth, knowledge, logic, reason,..etc, be so closed to any critical questions regarding their own information ?

What does this mean for

Skeptics & Critics:

They will argue that the quantity and quality of the counter-evidence so far presented in all the 4 parts suggests that Meier obviously made up the Ice man story by simply - copying & later editing - the scientific findings published in the media as the basis for his contact reports. And the seemingly evasive behaviour by FIGU Core Group Member Hans George Lanzendorfer to the critical questions posed on his own articles suggests that either Meier or FIGU didn't expect these ugly truths to come out to the open which they might have wished them to be buried under the rug.

Meier/FIGU supporters:

Who recognize the importance of evidence, would be very disappointed after knowing that so-called evidence which according to Michael Horn, allegedly made Astronaut Edgar Mitchell 'fascinated by proof of extraterrestrial's accurate scientific information about 5,100 year-old Iceman' & also being promoted by Michael Horn himself in all these years through his several articles - 2008, 2009, 2010 & 2014 - as a poster boy for Meier's - "specific, prophetically accurate information", "irrefutable fact", "obviously impossible to back-date", "absolutely accurate, scientifically corroborated information" & "verifiably published with ironclad copyright dates" - turned out to be exactly the opposite.

For any rationally thinking Meier/FIGU supporters, it seems that all the doors are closed & simply there is no way to rationalize or offer a logical comprehensive rebuttal to the so far documented contradictions & anomalies. But the opposite conclusion according to them that 'Meier did it all' is very repugnant & so just like any other normal person they will also try to find any "door" out by any means possible to come out of this cognitive dissonance. And most of them might generally resort to one or more or all of the following rationalizations (largely based on previous similar responses) & simply accepts them as truth:
  • accidental typing errors
  • our scientists and scientific investigations are still unsophisticated & unreliable in order to find the real facts
  • intentional typing errors made by MIB or others in order to discredit the case
  • Meier/ETs intentionally did it (plausible deniability) so that those people who can't handle the "truth" that 'ETs exist & visited Earth' were given a chance to be able to reject the case
  • claiming that everything I presented & cited so far is just pure pseudo-science & pseudo-research without pointing out exactly what is wrong with my research (seriously, some actually did claim it!)
  • ignore everything and would simply say that - 'the time is running out to save Earth from destruction and so we all should focus our energies on spiritual teachings rather than dissecting evidence'
Acknowledgements:
I am very grateful for James Moore for providing me the excerpts from Stimme der Wassermannzeit publications, which are crucial for this investigation. Also I wish to thank Brian Tone Covington for his donation of the ICEMAN (2001) book, which really helped us a lot in familiarizing ourselves with the story of Iceman, its discovery & scientific findings. Special thanks to Simon Goudswaard for providing me with the rough English translations of German material. Last but not least, I want to thank my sister Pavani for questioning my beliefs & pointing out any biases or mistakes that I have overlooked while investigating the Iceman issue which has been going on for more than a month.

Note: Also see Billy Meier's prediction on 5,300 year old Iceman, Ötzi: Fact vs Fiction

Rainbow Vision Network (Oct 30, 2014): Michael Horn on Plejaren Contactee Billy Meier's Shocking Predictions


Swiss farmer Billy Meier is probably one of the most puzzling and enigmatic of extraterrestrial contactees. He has been in contact with the Plejarens, advanced extraterrestrials, for years and they have allowed Billy to accumulate a large photo and video collection of their beamships. Billy has been given astonishing predictions through the years that continue to prove accurate. Discover what Billy has been told about our times. Michael Horn joins the show to discuss his long-time friend, predictions and the spiritual teaching of the Plejarens.

SHOW TIME: 6 pm PT, 7pm MT, 8pm CT, 9pm ET.

Michael Horn has been the American Media Representative on the Billy Meier contacts for over 30 years and is the authorized representative for the book on the Meier case, And Still They Fly. He is also the writer and producer of the award-winning feature length documentary, THE SILENT REVOLUTION OF TRUTH, and he’s the writer-producer and narrator of the DVD, THE MEIER CONTACTS--The Key to Our Future Survival.

Michael Horn's website: www.TheyFly.com
Scientist talks about Billy's prediction of Russian troop movement on YouTube.


Download: mp3
Source: blogtalkradio

Sunday, October 26, 2014

ARCHIVES PROJECT: Purchase of 'Stimme der Wassermannzeit' periodicals - October 8, 2014

 

I am glad to announce that we have acquired 13 periodicals (each 7 CHF) of 'Stimme der Wassermannzeit' for our RESEARCH & ARCHIVES project. Once again my sincere thanks for your valuable donations.

Nr. 2, 1. Jahrgang, Sep 1975/Jan 1994 (2nd reprint)
Nr. 3, 1. Jahrgang, Oct 1975/April 1995 (2nd reprint)   
Nr. 17, 2. Jahrgang, June-July 1977/Mar 1986 (2nd reprint)  
Nr. 35, 7. Jahrgang, Jan-Feb-Mar 1981   
Nr. 51, 9. Jahrgang, April-May-June 1984   
Nr. 53, 10. Jahrgang, July-Aug-Sep-Oct 1984   
Nr. 57, 10. Jahrgang, Sep 1985  
Nr. 69, 13. Jahrgang, Dec 1988   
Nr. 80, 15. Jahrgang, Sep 1991
Nr. 81, 15. Jahrgang, Dec 1991   
Nr. 82/1, 16. Jahrgang, Mar 1992   
Nr. 86, 17. Jahrgang, Mar 1993   
Nr. 87, 18. Jahrgang, June 1993   

Total cost = 91 CHF

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

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



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
Download: mp3

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 CR 238 from 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.
..
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: 

585. If looked at it from a legal angle, it would have to be that way, that’s right.

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.

Note: FIGU Core Group member Hans George Lanzendorfer even published an article titled - Gletschermann URK, Häuptling der Suren vom Zürichsee Oder: Wer suchet der findet (Iceman URK, Chief of the Suras from Lake Zurich Or He who seeks will find it) - in Stimme der Wassermannzeit Nr. 88, September 1993. In this article, Hans presents his extensive research (even citing corroborative information from Meier's CR 240, Dec 30, 1991) in narrowing down the homeland of Iceman and concluded that he must have come from either Männedorf-Surenbach (one of the pile-dwelling sites at Lake Zurich) or from other settlements in the same area.

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)