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

(continued from Part 1/4)

In this Part 2/4, we will discuss the following three points, all adding further support to the hypothesis that ARROW was added to SKB 13 after the discovery was made by scientists on July 2001:

1. Did Meier publish the information on Ice man, Ötzi in June 1991 publications of SWZ Nr. 79/1 & 79/2 ?
2. Is FIGU Core Group member, Hans George Lanzendorfer's corroboration article on Ötzi in FIGU Bulletin 47 (April 2004) valid ?
3. My personal correspondence with the press office of South Tyrol Museum of Archaeology & UFO-Nachrichten

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

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

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

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

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

Lieber Mahesh Karumudi!

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

Mit lieben Grüssen
Salome
Elisabeth

Rough English translation:

Dear Mahesh Karumudi!

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

With kind regards
Salome 

Elisabeth 

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

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

Lieber Mahesh Karumudi!

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

Liebe Grüsse
Salome
Elisabeth

Rough English translation:

Dear Mahesh Karumudi!

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

Best regards 
Salome
Elisabeth

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

1)

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

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

2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Page 3
"In regular intervals the public was and is informed about the progress in the Ötzi-research. So also in an older newspaper article in «Der Landbote» of July 26, 2001. Under the title «Killed by an arrow» new theories are explained:
The Landbote 26.7.2001
The secret around ‹Ötzis› death is solved: The Glacier man was struck down by an arrow 5300 years ago.
BOLZANO. The Glacier man ‹Ötzi› didn’t die because of an accident or by exhaustion, as previously thought, but succumbed to a wound by an arrow. That was declared yesterday by researchers in Bolzano after the analysis of computer tomography. On of the researchers, Eduard Egarter Vigl said that the arrowhead of flint had entered through ‹Ötzi’s› left shoulder blade. His left arm was paralyzed by the injury and he must have had severe internal bleeding. The angle of entry indicates that he was shot at from below."

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

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

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

What's more ?

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

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

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

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

Important Questions to ponder:

1. How can one consider it as evidence of Meier's contacts with ETs, when the information was only published after the discovery was made by hikers of Ice man's corpse on Sep 19, 1991 ?  
2. Why would "unbiased scientists" pay attention to Meier's information on Ice man when he only published it after the discovery was already known world-wide ?
3. What does he mean by "documented by ‹Billy› E. A. Meier in the contact reports" ?
   
4. What is the logic behind FIGU Core Group member, Hans George Lanzendorfer's conclusions ?

From our research, we have shown that there is no evidence at all to support HGL's claims. Despite having zero evidence, HGL made many extraordinary claims and verbally insulted & attacked scientists for not paying attention to Meier's information. Is the so far documented evidence published by FIGU members & Michael Horn on Meier's prophetic and predictive corroborations. follow the same logic, one might wonder!

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

Lieber Hans,

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

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

Diesbezüglich habe ich die folgende Fragen:

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

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

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

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

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

from: karumudi mahesh chowdary <mahigitam@gmail.com>
to: museum@iceman.it, jamesmdeem@yahoo.com, info@eurac.edu
date: Sun, Dec 11, 2011 at 7:41 PM

subject: Swiss Man's Prediction on the Discovery of Ice Man in 1991

Dear Sir,

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

1- Discovery of Ice Man

2- Death due to arrow

3- Fallen from a height due to epileptic fit

4- clothes & other articles

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

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

Sincerely
mahigitam

from: Katharina Hersel <Katharina.Hersel@iceman.it>

to: "mahigitam@gmail.com" <mahigitam@gmail.com>

date: Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 4:42 PM

subject: AW: Swiss Man's Prediction on the Discovery of Ice Man in 1991

Dear Mr. Karumudi,

thank you for your eMail.

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

Kindest regards,

Katharina Hersel M.A.

Press office

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

Hi Katharina,

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

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

Sincerely
mahigitam

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

Dear Mr. Karumundi,

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

Best regards,
Katharina Hersel

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

Hello Katharina,

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

Please refer to the earlier conversation for context.

Salome
Mahesh Karumudi

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

Dear Mahesh,

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

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

Kindest regards,
Katharina Hersel

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

Dear Katharina,

Thank you for responding soon!

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

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

Salome
Mahesh Karumudi

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

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

Dear Werner,

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

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

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

Regards
Mahesh Karumudi

Conclusion: 

From both Part 1 (2 reasons) & Part 2 (3 reasons), we have provided a total of 5 reasons (listed below), why Christian's claim that his SKB 13 with ARROW part was from 1996 year, is unlikely to be true.  

1. No practical reason to publish ARROW in some SKBs and not publish in other SKBs
2. No mention of ARROW in several other publications
3. Correspondence with FIGU Core Group member Elisabeth Moosbrugger
4. FIGU Core Group member Hans George Lanzendorfer's article in FIGU Bulletin 47, April 2004
5. Correspondence with the press office of South Tyrol Museum of Archaeology

Note:

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

(will be continued in Part 3/4)