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

see UDPATE (Jan. 23, 2016).

Icing the believers:

If you haven't already read our 4-part analysis on Iceman, then first do so here: Part 1, Part 2, Part 3 and Part 4.

In this update article, we would like to present more information on URK or Ötzi, the ~5,300 year old Iceman from the Contact Report (CR) published in the Plejadisch-plejarische Kontaktberichte Block 11 (PPKB 11, 2010) and also from the upcoming Plejadisch-plejarische Kontaktberichte Block 13 (PPKB 13). Specifically we are going to discuss the following topics:

1. Michael Horn finally "acknowledges" the missing ARROW
2. Scientists rely on Meier's CRs for their Iceman research 
3. Ötzi's homeland

1. Michael Horn finally "acknowledges" the missing ARROW

In Part 1 published in Sep 24, 2014, we have dealt with the extraordinary claim made by Michael Horn, which was that Meier had published the information on the cause of death (ARROW lodged in his back) of the 5,100 year old Iceman "mummy" which was unearthed high in the Austrian Alps in September 1991 before it was discovered. And since Meier, according to Michael, predicted and published this information in Semjase-Kontakt-Berichte volume 13 (SKB 13) in 1996, 5 years before the discovery of ARROW in Iceman's back by the scientists in the year 2001, he then must be given the $1,000,000 by James Randi because Meier has fulfilled James Randi's The Million Dollar Challenge on paranormal claims.

As it turned out, in Part 1, we have shown that the text where it was supposed to mention ARROW in Meier's Contact Report 238, is missing in the SKB 13 (which we looked into) that was published in 1996 and purchased before the year 2000. At that time we have suggested that the scans (provided by Christian Frehner to Michael Horn in the year 2008) of the CR 238 text with the word ARROW which Michael Horn provided as proof of Meier's foreknowledge on his website then most likely have come about from a new edition that was published after the ARROW was discovered by scientists in July 2001.

Fast forward to Feb 3, 2015 on which Michael published an article quoting the following excerpts from his correspondence with FIGU Core Group member and SSSC director Christian Frehner, which essentially supports our proposition that the word ARROW most likely have been inserted only after it was discovered by scientists in July 2001.

“In the original contact 238 of November 9, 1990, on page 2018 (original) the information about the arrows is missing, just as it is the case in SWZ 79/1¹ on page 60. And also the date is wrong in both “places”: 4105 years² instead of 5105 years. In the SKB Nr. 13 there’s something astonishing to notice: In my edition on page 2539, the one that I scanned for you, there’s the correct year (5105 y.) and also the information about the arrows, but in the version that is published on Mahesh’s site, the arrow information is not included. It’s a mystery to me. Perhaps the book was printed two times. I don’t remember, and I don’t have the brown SKB anymore.

or

In the course of the production of the new PPKB Blocks, Ptaah, Florena or Enjana were correcting the old contact notes together with Billy and Bernadette, usually on Saturday afternoon each week, in order to correct as many transmission errors³ as possible (there were really mistakes in it due to the high-speed transmission). Therefore, in PPKB Block 6, on page 398, the ‘arrow information’ plus other minor corrections were applied to the text during that correction process.

Regarding the publishing date of the Iceman information I would agree with Elisabeth Moosbrugger that the WZ 79/1 and 79/2 were published in autumn 1991¹ (certainly not before the Iceman was found), and possibly even at the time or a little bit after SWZ 80 was published.."

¹ see Part 2
² see Part 3
³ What are the chances that "errors" arise in the alleged telepathic transmission exactly with the pieces of crucial information that could have been the strong evidence for Meier’s foreknowledge (ARROW) and also results-in conveniently matching the incorrect scientific information (age of 4,105 years) at that time?

Here we have FIGU CG member and SSSC director (Christian Frehner) himself acknowledging that even in the original document (in which Meier allegedly types for the first time and which forms the basis for the publications) on page no. 2018, the word ARROW is missing and was only inserted during the alleged correction process (very likely after the ARROW was discovered by scientists in July 2001). Also in the original document, the age of Iceman's corpse was given as 4,105 years which was later changed to 5,105 years in FIGU publications from 1996 onwards, 4 years after it was found out by the scientists. Christian ascribes these later insertions as a part of 'correction process'. Whatever the reasons and intentions may be behind these "corrections", if these are known to have been added only after they were found out by scientists, then it is totally misleading and a case of deliberate misinformation to still claim this Meier's 5,100 year old Iceman information as "specific, prophetically accurate scientific information" and as a “proof of a "paranormal claim” which is what Michael Horn is still doing, despite being informed by several people about these new findings. On the other hand, in his 2015 blog post, it now seems the only "scientific" evidence which Michael Horn is now using to promote Billy Meier's alleged foreknowledge on the Iceman information is Meier's "proven good character"!

UPDATE (Jan. 23, 2016): Michael Horn published one more so-called "corroboration" article in which he still claims that '..Billy Meier received and published the essential facts well before the “official discovery” of the frozen mummy.'


Ice man or Straw man?:

In response to our 4-part analysis on the Ice-man on this blog, MH wrote the following in his 2015 blog post:

“For several months there have been allegations form certain people that Billy Meier falsified his information regarding the 5,100 year-old Iceman.”

The accusation that Meier falsified information is a serious one, which should not be made without proof. We never made that accusation because one can't know for sure the motivations and intentions behind adding and altering the information which again in all instances was only published after it was first reported in the media by the scientists.

So logically speaking, one can only state that first, the information Meier published combined with the publication dates doesn’t in any way prove Meier’s foreknowledge and second it even supports the null hypothesis, which is that Meier’s information regarding the ice man was based on terrestrial scientific information. But that doesn’t definitively PROVE that Meier falsified information. Apparently MH doesn’t understand these subtle but critical nuances.

Impossible to "falsify" the text in CRs?

In Michael Horn's 2015 article, he cites an excerpt from FIGU Core Group member, Hans Georg Lanzendorfer's (HGL) article, first published in FIGU Bulletin 51, March 2005. In the English translation of the HGL's article, he states that it is "highly improbable and quite impossible" for Meier to edit/falsify/retrodict the contact reports containing scientific information and prophecies/predictions because:

1. Contact reports are numbered
2. Information in various contact reports is interlinked 
3. FIGU Core Group (CG) members and interested readers would recognize the falsifications
4. Billy must have a super memory that could store thousands of pages
5. Until the year 2002 Meier used mechanical typewriter even though computer is available to him since 1992, which makes it very difficult to falsify as countless typed pages have to be made with gaps in-between texts for later retrodiction
6. In case of a forgery, he could not have known to which events he should refer in which contact report as it wouldn't have been possible to determine the free place for the supplements.
7. By inserting the new information (falsification), the old text would be disrupted over several pages away
8. Meier does not have necessary time for manipulations or falsifications of the contact reports
9. Falsification would require the withdrawing of already distributed books to FIGU CG, which would cause CG to question Meier
10. Other than the correction work that is declared openly, there exist no differences in different editions of the contact notes

All of the above reasons are faulty and contradictory. We already have addressed the major points on Billy Meier UFO Research (BMUFOR) website site here. To realize that the rest of the reasons are illogical we don't have to go any far. Let us look into the same Iceman information itself, which we are dealing with now.

FIGU CG members and interested readers would always notice the falsifications immediately and voice their criticism if any manipulations were made at all to the prophecies/predictions or scientific information in the contact reports?

False.
We have at least two FIGU CG members (Christian Frehner and Hans Georg Lanzendorfer) and American media Rep. for Meier case, Michael Horn who have published corroboration articles on Iceman information published by Meier. Yet they (including several others) who have direct or indirect access to the various editions, either failed to notice or kept silent about the obvious differences in the Iceman information published in various publications until we have published it for the first time through our analysis.

How could Meier accomplish this "highly improbable and quite impossible" feat without anyone finding it out?

Apparently it is very easy to accomplish this task of making changes to CRs. If they have failed to notice this, how many else have they failed to notice so far? We have documented many such examples (corrections or falsifications?) in our investigation into the prophecies and predictions, which soon will be published. For now check out this example - MUFON prediction. One likely reason for their failure to notice the obvious differences over different editions is due to the confirmation bias - a tendency to see and interpret information in a way that confirms one’s preconceptions. In the future, we will discuss this topic in much depth on BMUFOR.
 

2. Scientists rely on Meier's CRs for their Iceman research  

Following is the text from CR 451 (June 13, 2007) published in PPKB 11, 2010:

Billy
(...) But look here:

Three hundred and forty seventh contact, Tuesday, August 19, 2003, 22.53 h

Billy
... Look here, this article has been in the newspaper. It is about Urk.
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.
(Note .: See Plejadian-Plejaren contact reports, Block 6, 238. Contact, Saturday, May 18, 1991, page 397 et seq.).
9. That’s the real truth regarding Urk’s death.

Regarding this the following article was in the STERN Journal No. 22 from 24.5.2007:

The man from the ice
The corpse found by two hikers on September 19, 1991 at an altitude of more than 3200 meters close to the border between Austria and South Tyrol on the edge of a defrosted ice field was severely battered. Today we know: the end of the man of about 45-year-old and about 1,60 Meter tall with the impressive stone age travel equipment (…) is the oldest known murder case in history so far. Researchers dated the alpine glacier mummy, which in the meantime is called <Ötzi> all over the world, at an age of 5,350 years,
Probably the hiker was attacked from an ambush, an arrow pierced the left shoulder blade. Recent computer tomography images of the chief pathologist at the Bolzano Central Hospital, Eduard Egarter Vigl, show that the arrow tore up vital blood vessels. The physician is convinced: the victim only lived at most one to two minutes.
But who was Ötzi? The spectrum of hypotheses stretches from an ambushed shepherd to a tyrant, who was assassinated by his clan. The latest variant comes from the flint specialist and former chief geologist of the Ötzi-project, Alexander Binsteiner: There are many indications that the iceman was a copper prospector from the south, one who took care of the supply of the desired metal from north to south and the technology transfer from Upper Italy to the Northern Alps. And he was clearly not travelling alone. Because as the latest CT images show, the wooden shaft of the arrow has been carefully drawn from the wound. Binsteiner’s explanation: <Ötzi> wasn’t capable to do that anymore. And it could also not have been the offender, because he would have certainly taken the valuable equipment. So the only possibility that remains is companions who successfully could fend of the attack and then buried the dead (man) in sleeping position and with his personal possessions. The way it was customary at that time.

Billy:
It is remarkable that the scientists now came up with the idea that Urk wasn’t alone and that a raid or something has taken place. It seems to me that our contact conversations have played a decisive role, which mention that Urk was travelling with 13 companions and that all of them witnessed a fight to the death between two other rival groups, which resulted in a number of deaths. It seems very suspicious to me that those who research Urk now suddenly pick up on our discussed facts and mention that Urk was not alone. Very remarkable.
Ptaah:
5. Indeed, to me it also seems remarkable that it is now mentioned Urk wasn’t alone.
Billy:
Another question about this: Why was only Urk’s corpse found on the Similaun Glacier, as several people lost their lives there? How many were they in total? Do you know that?
Ptaah:
6. Apart from Urk, the number of dead was another six.
7. The bodies were indeed slightly covered during the ice storm, but they were taken away later, and indeed before they were dragged away by mountain animals and could have served them as food.
8. Only Urk’s body was left untouched by them because his companions left him and simply buried him under ice floes, so he was spared from the predators.
Billy:
So that is how it was.

What does CR 451 state?

In CR 451 (2007), we have Meier referring to CR 238 (1991) and also quoting excerpts from CR 347 (2003) along with an article published in STERN magazine No. 22 from May 24, 2007 which Meier gives to Ptaah to read. After reading the STERN article, both Meier and Ptaah strongly suggest that the "facts" regarding Urk/Ötzi published in the aforementioned contact reports would have been picked up by the scientists after reading them.

What are these "facts/ideas" in the CRs which scientists have picked up and which played a decisive role in their research, according to Meier/Ptaah?

A - Ötzi travelled with 13 companions and wasn't alone (CR 238 and CR 347)
B - Ötzi witnessed a battle to the death between 6 human beings of two rivalling groups or tribes (CR 347)

How did Meier/Ptaah connect the above "facts" from CR 238 and CR 347 to the information in the STERN article?

Regarding the Claim A, the 2007 STERN article presents a new hypothesis (at that time) involving the identity of Ötzi and his death, that has been put forward by the flint specialist and former chief geologist of the Ötzi-project, Alexander Binsteiner. Specifically regarding the Ötzi's death, Alexander gave 3 reasons suggesting that Ötzi might have companions and that he might have been buried in a ceremony rather than left to die (due to the fatal arrow shot on his back) on the glacier alone. The reasons are:

1. Ötzi was incapable to remove the arrow that was lodged in his back, by himself. So there must be at least another person to remove it.
2. Ötzi's valuable equipment and his personal possessions were found at the site near his corpse, which would have been taken away by the attacker if Ötzi was alone. So there must be companion(s) who must have fend off the attacker(s) and secured them.
3. Ötzi's corpse was found in a sleeping position with all of his personal possessions nearby, suggesting a burial tradition of that time.

Assuming for a moment that scientists did read Meier's text, now the main question is:  
How could reading Meier's texts on Ötzi having 13 companions lead scientist(s) to propose that Ötzi might have companions ?

As it turns out, it is inconceivable to even imagine how scientists could arrive at their conclusions based on Meier's data from CR 238 and CR 347. Evidently there is no logical pathway or line of reasoning that connects what Meier wrote and what Alexander proposed regarding Iceman's companion(s) in the 2007 STERN article as the reasons stated by Alexander are either absent or contradictory to what Meier published in his CRs. Compare the below responses with the above 3 reasons:

1. Meier didn't mention what happened to the remaining part of the ARROW, whose arrowhead was lodged in Ötzi's back. Was it broken when Ötzi fell from a height (CR 238, v. 574 and CR 347, v. 8)? Or was it removed by one of his 13 companions? Why is this part of the arrow not been found at the excavation site? This information is totally absent in Meier's CRs which otherwise in theory (however improbable) could have been argued as "decisive" for scientists.
2. According to Meier, there was no attacker behind Ötzi's death and the actual reason for his death is due to a fall on his back from some height (due to an epileptic fit) during which he was severely injured by his own ARROW. This contradicts Alexander's 2nd reason which requires an attacker for his companion hypothesis.
3. The burial hypothesis proposed by Alexander was published in STERN magazine in May 24, 2007 which is 20 days earlier than the alleged meeting that took place between Meier and Ptaah (CR 451, June 13, 2007) in which Ptaah/Meier for the first time* mentions that Ötzi was buried by his companions. So in this case how can Meier/Ptaah claim that scientists likely have picked up the 'buried by companions' idea from the CR 451 when the alleged contact hadn't even took place and the conversation documented and published? CR 451 was for the first time published in Semjase Kontakt Berichte 2nd ed. Vol 22 (SKB 22) in 2008 and later in PPKB 11, 2010.

 *
CR 238 (1991):

Ptaah:
572. The next thing will happen in the Oetztal Mountains, 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.
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..

CR 347 (2003):

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

The above text clearly indicates that just at the moment when Ötzi fell and suffered a fatal injury (by his own ARROW that pierced into his body), a "primeval ice storm" started from which the 13 remaining persons were "fully occupied" with saving their own lives and they "did not care" for Ötzi. Fast forward to 2007 (CR 451), apparently after reading the STERN article containing the burial hypothesis, we then have Ptaah/Meier mentioning that Ötzi was carefully buried by his companions which is why his corpse was not ravaged by the mountain animals which usually feasts on the corpses. This clearly contradicts the earlier information from CR 238 and CR 347 (green-colored text). This adds further support to the null hypothesis which we already have pointed out in Part 3 and Part 4, which states that Meier/FIGU would use the contemporary scientific theories or opinions published in the media (newspapers, magazines, TV,..etc), as the basis for their publication of the information in CRs.

Is there any evidence to support the burial theory?

Alexander in his 2007 STERN article, just proposed a few reasons as to why Ötzi could have been buried. But there were already other valid theories at that time that could explain most of the evidence. For example, one theory (see Part 4) alternative to the burial hypothesis states that the attacker removed the arrow shaft (which is missing at the excavation site) from Ötzi's back because he must have also belonged to the same tribe and hence doesn't want to leave behind evidence (arrow shaft) that could lead back to him. Due to the same reason he also didn't want to possess Ötzi's equipment and his personal possessions as this would clearly indicate his role in Ötzi's murder. It was also said that since Ötzi was found with his left arm appear twisted across his chest, which is unnatural and doesn't resemble any culture's burial tradition, he couldn't have been buried.

This BBC news article published in August 25, 2010 talks about a more recent study conducted by the archaeologist Alessandro Vanzetti of Rome’s La Sapienza University and his co‐authors that supports the burial hypothesis. This study suggests that months after his death, Ötzi's corpse was carried to the high mountain pass where it was found. And the discovery site therefore may not be a murder scene after all, but a burial ground. In the same BBC article, one can also notice the criticism to this hypothesis from other experts. Soon after it was published, on Aug 30, 2010 a statement was published by the South Tyrol Museum of Archaeology which currently is researching the Iceman. Following are a couple of excerpts that explains the gist of the response:

"Vanzetti’s scenario, which has already been discussed numerous times in the past, displays fundamental weaknesses in its chain of argument and its archaeological context, however, meaning that his theory cannot be accepted by the majority of researchers into the Iceman."

"The arguments of Vanzetti et al., hypothesising a burial on the glacier, are therefore unconvincing both from an archaeological as well as from a biological point of view."

This was also again restated at the "2nd Bolzano Mummy Congress" held at the European Academy of Bolzano from the 20th to the 22nd October 2011, by Albert Zink, Head of the Institute for Mummy Research at EURAC:

""He (Ötzi) felt safe enough to take a break, and settled down to a copious meal. While thus resting, he was attacked, shot with an arrow and left for dead." There was no evidence pointing to a possible burial as some scientists have suggested in the past. "The position of the mummified body with his arm pointing obliquely upwards, the lack of any piles of stones or other features which often accompany burial sites, runs counter to the burial theory,".."

Regarding the Claim B, Alexander Binsteiner in the 2007 STERN article mentions that the Iceman and his companion(s) probably were ambushed. But this ambush/attack theory (with only Iceman) was first proposed by the scientists when an arrowhead that caused the fatal injury was discovered in Iceman's back in July 2001, 6 years before the alleged meeting that took place between Meier and Ptaah (CR 451, June 13, 2007). Even in CR 347, Meier mentions Ötzi witnessing a battle to the death between 6 human beings of two rivalling groups or tribes, which was disclosed only after these incorrect conclusions (see Part 4) were first reported in the media at least by Aug 14, 2003, 5 days before the alleged meeting that took place between Meier and Ptaah (CR 347, Aug 20, 2003) and 4 years before CR 451. Again it is inconceivable to even imagine how scientists could arrive at their conclusions based on Meier's data from CR 347.

3. Ötzi's homeland

Text from the CR 238 (1991) unambiguously states that he was "original Swiss" and came from the "banks of Lake Zurich", which is a lake in Switzerland, extending southeast of the city of Zürich. Even the FIGU Core Group member Hans George Lanzendorfer 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.

In Part 3, we looked into the above information on the location of Iceman's homeland published by Meier/FIGU and pointed out that it was proven false by a 2003 study that establishes that the Iceman was from Italy, which lies to the south of Switzerland.

As it turns out, early this month (Feb 3, 2015) after more than two decades it has been reported by Christian Frehner that the Iceman actually was not originally from Lake Zurich region in Switzerland but from the southern regions.

"Btw: In PP Block 13 there will be additional information on the Iceman. He and his father do not originate from the Lake Zurich region, but came up there from southern regions.”

If these "southern regions" include Italy, then this can be said to be another example that strongly supports the null hypothesis which states that Meier/FIGU would use the contemporary scientific theories or opinions published in the media (newspapers, magazines, TV,..etc), as the basis for their publication of the information in CRs.

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 Ötzi & Ötzi 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 - Tageszeitung & Südtirol 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 arrow → Epileptic 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