From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 18:08:43 -0700
Fwd Date: Tue, 26 Sep 2000 12:24:06 -0400
Subject: Re: Meier-Hoax Claims - Deardorff


 >From: Nathan G. Daniel <7starspublishing@onemain.com>
 >Date: Mon, 25 Sep 2000 02:01:22 -0700
 >Subject: Re: Meier-Hoax Claims
 >To: "UFO UpDates - Toronto" <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>From: Jim Deardorff <deardorj@proaxis.com>
 >>Subject: Re: Meier-Hoax Claims
 >>Date: Sun, 24 Sep 2000 15:17:38 -0700
 >>To: UFO UpDates - Toronto <updates@sympatico.ca>

 >>I really was hoping that you'd have something substantive to
 >>say, something with some meat to it, especially where Korff's
 >>book mentions your input.

 >...Meat? Hey, Jim... you're a vegetarian. You don't like meat, or
 >reality.

 >You know the Meier case is a joke, but you have to defend it
 >like a maniac because you have a vested interest in it. You
 >don't care if people get ripped off do you? You believe it's
 >okay to defraud consumers?

Nathan,

I'm still waiting for some meat; something other than quips,
irrelevancies and false claims having no logical support.

It's deplorable to see people being subject to these false
claims, and some swallowing them, because they don't have the
time or initiative to investigate it all for themselves and
learn the details of what Stevens, the Elders, Kinder and others
have investigated. Or in some cases because they don't wish to
be subject to verbal abuse for having checked out Meier's
supportive witnesses and finding them to be honest, and
reporting back on it.

 >You won't accept the testimony of your colleagues in this forum.

Testimony? As if from witnesses? Go to the witnesses themselves
if you wish testimony. Don't go to the non-witnesses!

 >You're a contributor to the hoax too, aren't you, Jim? Didn't
 >you write a book authenticating the Talmud Jmmanuel? Don't you
 >benefit from having a cult following read your work.

Do you need to subject the List to this kind of drivel, Nathan?
I could, in turn, rant on and on about how you're a contributor
to the Meier-case coverup. How about getting down to brass tacks
instead?

The Talmud of Jmmanuel (TJ) speaks for itself. Anyone with
enough time can look into it thoroughly, like I did, and notice
the hundreds of points where the Gospel of Matthew reads along
like the TJ except for alterations of one or several words, one
or several sentences, and omissions or additions of whole chunks
of text. Then one asks, could a hoaxer have done this, using
Matthew? If so, how would such a hoaxer know to make alterations
that would fix up some 440 verses that New Testament scholars
have criticized as being questionable or non-genuine, when a lot
of these criticisms didn't come out in print until after 1978,
when the TJ was first printed in German? I've marked with an
asterisk in my mttjindx.htm file the alterations that are
particularly striking as much too creative yet natural to the
flow of the TJ's teachings for any hoaxer to have accomplished.

 >You were quoted years ago having said about the Talmud Jmmanuel
 >approximately this:

 >"no serious Bible scholar will ever take the Talmud Jmmanuel
 >seriously without the original Aramaic manuscript."

 >So why do you?

To correct your approximation, the first "serious" should read
"reputable." Don't we all know that "reputable" scientists are
the ones who avoid looking into the UFO phenomenon seriously?
They wish or need to maintain their reputations.

In my website, you should have noticed the reasons why such scholars avoid
study and discussion of the TJ. These are:

1) It is heretical in several ways;

2) Its originals are no longer extant;

3) It indicates that certain gospel events were UFO related, and
the  UFO topic is taboo for scholars to discuss openly in print
or on the Web;

4) It is connected with an alleged UFO contactee, and even many
ufologists shun contactees;

5) It is sensational, and scholars shy away from the
sensational, or from what they perceive as radical;

6) Certain verses, if taken out of context, may seem pro-Aryan
or anti-Semitic;

7) It indicates that Jmmanuel had been a long-range prophet, not
just short-range; and

8) It indicates that Matthew had come first, not Mark.

Any one or two of these will turn off the "reputable" NT
scholar.

 >There is no original Aramaic manuscript. Only stories about how
 >a manuscript was destroyed, etc. from a known liar--Billy Meier.

That's your assumption. It can't explain why the TJ's
translation contains Aramaisms. The Aramaisms, and other
indications of having derived from an ancient text, strongly
support the TJ's genuineness. And your claim can't explain how
the TJ has close parallels to a lot of Matthean verses yet is
not subject to scholars' criticisms of Matthew at these same
points. You are trying to turn Billy Meier into a super-brain
superior to any known Gospel scholar or combination of scholars,
as well as a one-armed magician who could deceive some 25
supportive witnesses, produce hoaxed photos with no accomplice
ever coming forward to take credit and show the world how he did
it, produce metal samples unexplainable by human technology,
produce a length, loud sound recorded on two tapes in front of
witnesses that upon later analysis was found could not have been
generated by any sound equipment anywhere around, etc.

 >Isn't it odd, the originals of almost everything have been
 >destroyed.

Not at all. It would have been very odd if the originals of the
TJ had not been destroyed somewhere along the line, once it was
brought to the attention of certain officials. As you should
know, its heresies, if the scrolls had not been destroyed,
would, upon study by paleographers and radio-carbon daters, have
caused a terrific problem for Christianity, and to a lesser
extent, for Judaism as well (if such scholars would have been
willing and able to publish their findings).

 >Meier's Matters of Convenience:
 >
 >1. The original negatives of the hundreds of Meier's
 >photos--conveniently tossed in the fireplace by Meier's wife.

Where did you come up with that? A few were destroyed that way,
most were not. Wendelle Stevens is quite sure that the 40
Beamship slides of Meier, from which he had internegatives made
in a photo processing shop in Winterhur in early 1978, were
originals, as they were marked as the originals are. An
exception was the Schmarbuel-Maiwinkel series in which the
Mirage jet chased the beamship repeatedly; it had come back from
the developers with left-to-right reversed, indicating they
could not be originals.

 >2. The negatives could easily determine hoaxed photos, but
 >they're conveniently not around.

Meier still has them. He's long been aware that if he gave them
up for analysis, he'd never likely receive the originals back.

 >3. The original manuscript of the Talmud--conveniently destroyed
 >in a fire.

Nothing convenient about that. The air raids on the Lebanese
refugee camp at that time killed and wounded a lot of people.

 >The translator of the Talmud--conveniently killed and

It was convenient only to future debunkers. It wasn't convenient
for Isa Rashid and his family, which were assassinated along
with him, Meier was told.

 >4. Conveniently, no verification that the guy ever existed.

Meier has the verification, but has never released the
information on Rashid's background and surviving relatives, lest
they in turn be assassinated. He kept Rashid's name secret until
learning that Rashid had been killed, and could then reveal it,
as it is such a common name. If you're a ufologist, you should
realize that more often than not, the investigator of a UFO
sighting keeps the witnesses anonymous at their request. But you
expect Meier to reveal that which could be even more dangerous
to Rashid's relatives? Some of the assassination attempts
against Meier were no doubt made because he's also a witness to
the original TJ.

 >Jim, weren't you disenchanted with your religion, found the
 >Meier material felt inspired and suddenly saw an opportunity to
 >rewrite the Bible and get back at those stuffy Presbyterians?

No, Nathan. I was never a firm believer or fundamentalist, but
just went along with it until the Meier case shook me out of my
complacency. Then I learned what NT scholars had to say, and of
their fractious views. They're really in no better shape than
ufology is.

 >You want meat? No matter what meat you're fed, you're not going
 >to swallow. How could you go any other way?

So you accept defeat from the beginning, eh?

 >Here's a morsel for you:

 >I personally interviewed Ken Dinwiddy (sp?) of DeAnza labs.
 >According to Dinwiddy, Dilletoso walked into DeAnza labs
 >claiming that he was going to buy a computer for his company. He
 >presented one or more of the Meier photos and asked if the
 >computer was capable of splashing colors here and there. DeAnza
 >performed the task of colorizing, not analysis. Dilletoso took
 >off with the photos..

...you mean the analyses he made from the photos he brought in
with him...

 >..without buying the computer. Soon after, the
 >photos appeared in the Meier books. I don't have the book with
 >me to give a direct quote, but if I remember correctly, the book
 >Contact from the Pleaides had an explanation stating something
 >like this:

 >...the colors surrounding the ship are energy fields being
 >emitted from propulsion system of the beamship...the analysis
 >was performed by DeAnza labs. DeAnza labs stamp mark is seen on
 >the photo to give credibility to the photo.

I've searched for a quote like this in Genesis III's vols. 1 and
2, but couldn't find it. Perhaps you or someone else can spot
it, report the reference and page, and quote it verbatim. All I
could find was, besides the results of analyses done by
Dilettoso, the words "Courtesy of De Anza Systems" on the one
enlarged photo. You'd need to get Dilletoso's side of the story
also if you wished to make a fairer judgment on whether or not
he was under obligation to have purchased the computer from
Dinwiddie after testing it out, and utilizing it, on a photo he
was interested in.

 >Wendelle Stevens? Here's Steven's scientific analysis:

 >...from the hundreds of Meier photographs, we took 4 that looked
 >the best and we were left with an assumption that if the 4
 >checked out, then the rest must be real."

 From correspondence with Stevens, and from his books, I've
learned that he could not afford to have computer analyses done
in those days on more than four photos. The four he picked were
from four different dates/locations so that he could get a
variety of situations with differing sun angles, etc. They were
also chosen on the basis of clarity or sharpness, with the UFO
being as close as possible to the camera.

 >Stevens only tested 4 photographs. The test methods are
 >questionable. And the conclusion is that if 4 passed the test,
 >the rest must be real. (What?)

If he had checked out 10, you'd say the same thing, with "10"
substituting for "4". Eh what? There were some 500 that needed
to be checked out. However, it's still true that if only one of
the photos is proven genuine (as in the case where the abies
alba tree could not have been any model tree), with other photos
still in dispute, then the assumption that the case is a hoax is
false. Or is a hoaxer supposed to have built some UFO models,
and with one of them attracted a genuine UFO that had exactly
the same appearance as the model?

 >First: Photographs of unconventional extraterrestrial technology
 >that are foreign to our world cannot be validated without having
 >a real comparative sample by which the tests are conducted.

I guess that means that the Pleiadians/Plejarens are supposed to
give up one of their (real) beamships that they used with Meier
to certain government scientists as a sample to study and
photograph. Then if you could ever learn about their studies,
and obtain copies of their photographs, you could compare those
with Meier's photos, for validation. Somehow that sounds like
too fanciful a dream to expect to be fulfilled.

 >Second: Photo analysts can determine if the object in a
 >photograph is a large, real size object, not necessarily
 >extraterrestrial.

Using Stevens' 2nd-generation photo material (1st generation
being Meier's originals or slides), that's already been done on
the basis of increasing distance of the beamship in a particular
case causing the crafts' edges to occupy an increasing number of
pixels relative to its width with increasing distance from the
camera, doing the same using various trees in the same frame,
noticing the distance at which both have approximately the same
definition of edge, and measuring the distances to the various
trees. Qualitatively it's been done from two other series of
photographic copies, noticing that the craft becomes lighter in
appearance (sometimes called the haze effect) with increasing
distance.

 >No need to respond with your counter arguments.

OK, will stop here.

 >N. Daniel

 >Buy the way, Jim, what did Meier say about the way "J's" are
 >written or pronounced in Aramaic?

He's never thought that they were part of Aramaic, but was
informed by one of his ET contactors that they were part of an
old Lyran alphabet in which the J symbol was prononced as i,j,
or y. (Immanuel is pronounced about the same in any language,
whether English or Aramaic -- that's what transliteration of
names involves: using letters that will preserve as closely as
possible the name in its original tongue.) So "Jmmanuel" is
pronounced as "Immanuel." The J symbol has the "i" sound.

 >Do you speak Aramaic? Ever
 >read Aramaic? Ever hear Aramaic spoken? Can you write anything
 >in Aramaic?

Have never claimed to. Have just read several books on Aramaisms
relative to the Gospels. The authors knew Aramaic well.

   Jim Deardorff

http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj
http://www.proaxis.com/~deardorj/mttjindx.htm