Billy Meier:Community portal - Revision history

Independent at 18:02, 25 November 2020

2020-11-25T18:02:40Z

Independent: /* Recorded discussions and individuals */

2020-11-18T22:15:11Z

Recorded discussions and individuals

Daniel Leech at 17:57, 26 May 2019

2019-05-26T17:57:40Z

Daniel Leech: /* Requests and feedback */

2019-05-25T06:50:53Z

Requests and feedback

Libreoffice74: /* Requests and feedback */

2019-04-21T14:56:51Z

Requests and feedback

Libreoffice74: /* Requests and feedback */

2019-04-21T14:49:00Z

Requests and feedback

Libreoffice74: /* Requests and feedback */

2019-04-09T16:49:11Z

Requests and feedback

Libreoffice74: /* Requests and feedback */

2019-04-09T14:51:52Z

Requests and feedback

Libreoffice74: /* Requests and feedback */

2019-04-09T14:35:21Z

Requests and feedback

Libreoffice74: /* Requests and feedback */

2019-04-09T14:33:34Z

Requests and feedback

← Older revision		Revision as of 18:02, 25 November 2020
Line 73:		Line 73:
	<sup><small>OPINION</small></sup><br>		<sup><small>OPINION</small></sup><br>
	Whoever that seeks the truth ends up here.		Whoever that seeks the truth ends up here.
		+
		+
		+	<sup><small>OPINION</small></sup><br>
		+	It is recommended to stay far away from FIGU and Billy Meier for one reason because they reveal secrets of the future which will create great shocks and revolutions in the future, but this information is revealed in a dulled depressed way without and before the worldwide revelation has occurred and is thus a form of distortion and delusion, similar to viewing pornography too often, masturbating too often or prostitution, owning an animal, talking to it and picking up its feces. FIGU is either a premature gorging or binging on events of the future in a perverse prefictionalisation or a pseudoscientific whoring of the prospective discoveries and/or events of the future, in an isolated and alone non-public yet regarding public and other people in a sort of pseudologia fantastica pastiche of futures of indefinite reality.

@@ Line 19: / Line 19: @@
 * [https://youtu.be/0EdQeqvW6jA Dubhaltagh o‘Hearcain (Youtube external link)]
 : <small>Did I make a mistake with the Billy Meier material.</small>
 * [https://youtu.be/hslRv0A4jYQ Jedaiah Ramnarine and Christian Frehner (Youtube external link)]
 : <small>Jedaiah Ramnarine has a youtube channel called Peace Seeking Intelligence (PSI).</small>

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-<div style="float:right">[[File:Nearby SSSC 176.jpg|thumb|390px|left|<small>Taken in the Zürcher Unterland ("Zurich lowlands")</small>]]</div>
+<div style="float:right">[[File:Nearby SSSC 176.jpg|thumb|390px|left|<small>Taken in the Zürcher cantons Bible Belt, Switzerland’s religious communities block. Rated world’s most expensive Bible Belt to live.</small>]]</div>
 <div style="float:left">__TOC__</div>
 <br clear="all" />

@@ Line 50: / Line 50: @@
 ==Requests and feedback==
 Use the Disqus comments section and see [[Questions I Would Like Answered]]
 <sup><small>REQUESTS</small></sup><br>

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:56, 21 April 2019
Line 52:		Line 52:

	<sup><small>REQUESTS</small></sup><br>		<sup><small>REQUESTS</small></sup><br>
−	We need to present a list of ‘high quality sceptics’ on the website under the evidence section, as a community. They must be pleasant, reasonable, thorough, but succinct, accurate, honest. It is important to have scepticism because we don’t like beliefs, but those individuals on the list must not cherry pick what they want to see, because this is also what is bad about the current selection of sceptics. We need a selection of sceptics who have looked at everything and weighed it up, it’s not fair to highlight those individuals who think they’ve really discovered something and have focused on the fraud photos which FIGU have distanced themselves from for over 20 years. Any newbie shallow knowledge individual looking in, who is sane, and who reigns from an non-religious backdrop, will be looking for the scientific sceptics opinion; someone who has reasoned successfully with it, we need to provide them with a list of ‘high quality sceptics’. There are a few quality sceptics available, but none of those persons capable of putting the list together care about it, I hardly blame them, but new persons then find the Phil Langdon and Kal Korpf, I suppose this is their own fault for being gullible and pre-stupid, but a list of quality reasoning sceptical persons accessible to them is compassionate.	+	We need to present a list of ‘high quality sceptics’ on the website under the evidence section, as a community. They must be pleasant, reasonable, thorough, but succinct, accurate, honest. It is important to have scepticism because we don’t like beliefs, but those individuals on the list must not cherry pick what they want to see, because this is also what is bad about the current selection of sceptics. We need a selection of sceptics who have looked at everything and weighed it up, it’s not fair to highlight those individuals who think they’ve really discovered something and have focused on the fraud photos which FIGU have distanced themselves from for over 20 years. Any newbie shallow knowledge individual looking in, who is sane, and who reigns from an non-religious backdrop, will be looking for the scientific sceptics opinion; someone who has reasoned successfully with it, we need to provide them with a list of ‘high quality sceptics’. There are a few quality sceptics available, but none of those persons capable of putting the list together care about it, I hardly blame them, but new persons then find the Phil Langdon and Kal Korpf, I suppose this is their own fault for being gullible and pre-stupid, but a list of quality reasoning sceptical persons accessible to them is compassionate. But a name and a link is enough, no convincing of anyone. If they’re stupid enough to not be able to see this all deals with reality then that is not our concern.

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:49, 21 April 2019
Line 50:		Line 50:
	==Requests and feedback==		==Requests and feedback==
	Use the Disqus comments section and see [[Questions I Would Like Answered]]		Use the Disqus comments section and see [[Questions I Would Like Answered]]
		+
		+	<sup><small>REQUESTS</small></sup><br>
		+	We need to present a list of ‘high quality sceptics’ on the website under the evidence section, as a community. They must be pleasant, reasonable, thorough, but succinct, accurate, honest. It is important to have scepticism because we don’t like beliefs, but those individuals on the list must not cherry pick what they want to see, because this is also what is bad about the current selection of sceptics. We need a selection of sceptics who have looked at everything and weighed it up, it’s not fair to highlight those individuals who think they’ve really discovered something and have focused on the fraud photos which FIGU have distanced themselves from for over 20 years. Any newbie shallow knowledge individual looking in, who is sane, and who reigns from an non-religious backdrop, will be looking for the scientific sceptics opinion; someone who has reasoned successfully with it, we need to provide them with a list of ‘high quality sceptics’. There are a few quality sceptics available, but none of those persons capable of putting the list together care about it, I hardly blame them, but new persons then find the Phil Langdon and Kal Korpf, I suppose this is their own fault for being gullible and pre-stupid, but a list of quality reasoning sceptical persons accessible to them is compassionate.

@@ Line 88: / Line 88: @@
-<sup><small>MISTAKEN IDENTITY EXPERT</small></sup><br>
+<sup><small>QUESTION AND OPINION</small></sup><br>
-+ Fake ET/Space/Time Travel Photos 100% debunked by BMUFOR proven to be photos out of NASA magazines and science books.<br>
+Why doesn’t Michael Horn in his long presentations ever bring up the big secret that we are genetically modified and our life expectancy and history is short with plenty of psychopathy in between because of that? He covers many subjects in his interviews and lectures, why doesn’t he tell the older folks in the room ‘you’re going to die in a decade or two, and don’t delude yourself about it, that’s soon’, because for many folks this big secret is much more impressive and explanatory of the story than most of the other stuff he ever talks about. It’s also more enriching as a subject for his presentation interviews, I mean in the last few hundred years we’ve basically discovered everything again, is that surely more exciting as a guest presentation piece and perspective device for evolution-scientists and religious-scholars than talking about the silly sceptics and their arguments? We’re interesting, why not celebrate that by opening some champagne with a scientist now and again.
 ==Wiki development==

@@ Line 86: / Line 86: @@
 <sup><small>CONFUSED COMMENT</small></sup><br>
 but wheres the evidence? this is just empty talk
 ==Wiki development==

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:35, 9 April 2019
Line 77:		Line 77:

	<sup><small>OPINION</small></sup><br>		<sup><small>OPINION</small></sup><br>
−	It might seem to be nice to share with others, but it boils down to whether they have any interest in it whatsoever, just like it is with a great many interests. Try it one time to see and confirm it is interesting to them.	+	It might seem to be nice to share with others, but it boils down to whether they have any interest in it whatsoever, just like it is with a great many interests. Try it one time to see and confirm it is not interesting to them.

← Older revision		Revision as of 14:33, 9 April 2019
Line 77:		Line 77:

	<sup><small>OPINION</small></sup><br>		<sup><small>OPINION</small></sup><br>
−	It might be nice to share with ~~other~~ but it boils down to whether they have any interest in it whatsoever, just like it is with a great many interests.	+	It might seem to be nice to share with others, but it boils down to whether they have any interest in it whatsoever, just like it is with a great many interests. Try it one time to see and confirm it is interesting to them.