09-29-2011, 09:49 PM
Michael Horn Exposed as an Agent Provocateur
Aloha, recently agent provocateurs were exposed at a protest at the North American leaders summit in Quebec, Canada where they tried to incite confrontation and violence at a peaceful protest (see: http://tinyurl.com/yo6tms ). Agent provocatuers are not just active in political protests, but also present in the exopolitical community. It's important that objective criteria are found to identify agent provocateurs who can be very disruptive and divisive in the exopolitical community. Before exposing someone I believe to be an agent provocateur who has been a disruptive force in the exopolitical community, let me begin by first explaining how to identify an agent provocateur.
An agent provocateur (plural: agents provocateurs, French language, "inciting agent") is a person who secretly disrupts a group's activities from within the group. Agents provocateurs typically represent the interests of another group, or are agents directly assigned to provoke unrest, violence, debate, or argument by or within a group while acting as a member of the group. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur
Agent provocateurs are trained to foment dissent and heated argumentation for its divisive value in order to distract a group from its primary goals. Agent provocateurs do not seek to cooperate with others or find consensus positions in a difficult political or research environment, only to raise the levels of friction by focusing on wedge issues and by misrepresenting others. In doing so, agent provocateur will use the traditional tools of debate whereby they will present themselves as disinterested parties merely seeking the truth. In reality, their truth seeking is a thinly veiled disguise to disrupt, antagonize and provoke disharmony by making unrealistic demands in a difficult political or research environment. In 1953, the Robertson Panel recommended debunking individuals and evidence supporting the reality of flying saucers and the extraterrestrial hypothesis (see: http://www.majesticdocuments.com/officia...npanel.php ). The CIA was the main intelligence agency behind the Robertson Panel and used its recommendations to undermine UFO research. Consequently, the CIA and other intelligence agencies or like minded parties have used agent provocateurs in the UFO/exopolitical community.
There are a number of criteria we can use to spot an agent provocateur in the UFO/exopolitical community. Some of the more obvious are the following:
1. focuses on wedge issues,
2. uses debunking tactics,
3. misrepresents positions and arguments of others,
4. uses heated rhetoric and insulting language,
5. openly attacks others seeking common goals,
6. uses a suitable cover identity,
7. makes public divisive issues that are best resolved confidentially
It is important that agent provocateurs are identified since they can be very disruptive and divisive when it comes to conducting exopolitical research. This takes me to an individual who is active in the exopolitical community that based on his behavioral characteristics I have concluded is an agent provocateur.
Michael Horn is the "Authorized American Media Representative" of Billy Meier and exclusively promotes the Meier case as the only scientifically validated contactee case. The authenicity of the Meier case is not an issue of dispute between us since I have stated my view that Meier is a legitimate contactee, though I have disputed the exclusivity attributed to him by Meier himself and his supporters: (see: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/exopo...message/94 ). In his August 31, 2007 emails Horn once again challenged me on the merits of the Alex Collier case which we have publicly debated and disagreed over for some time (see:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prepare4co...sage/15393 ). Regardless of this, Horn has continued to pursue the issue which has led me to release this statement. Based on his past behavior and recent emails, I believe Horn has exposed himself as an agent provocateur. Here are my reasons.
Over the last two years, Horn has repeatedly challenged me in my support for the Alex Collier case. Despite repeated responses addressing many of the issues he raises, he continues to revisit the Collier case even though we strongly disagree over its merits. In my correspondence, I have repeatedly offered him the opportunity to agree to disagree, but he has replied that unless I respond in a manner satisfying him, that I am perpetuating a fraud. I have on many occasions pointed out my reasons for believing Alex Collier is authentic. These are summarized here: http://galacticdiplomacy.com/Contactees-Collier.htm . Horn is free not to accept these but that does not invalidate the reasons I give. A wedge issue is one that clearly divides individuals or communities on one side or another of a debate. Since the Collier case is clearly a wedge issue and Horn refuses to move on to other exopolitical topics of common interest, then Horn satisfies the above criterion #1.
Horn claims that he is merely seeking the truth in demanding hard evidence or proof that Alex Collier is authentic. However, he crosses the line from being a "genuine skeptic" who takes an agnostic position given the lack of hard evidence to substantiate Collier's claims, to becoming a debunker wherein he says that lack of evidence means Collier is a fraud. For those desiring to know the difference between a skeptic and a debunker (or pseudo skeptic), please visit: http://www.ufoskeptic.org/ . Horn's position on Collier is that of the debunker who mistakenly leaps to the conclusion that lack of substantiation means someone is a fraud. However, absence of proof is not proof of absence. Horn has been active in the UFO/exopolitical community long enough to know this but he chooses to repeatedly ignore it in his attacks against Collier's and other contactees' authenicity. Therefore Horn is consciously taking a debunking position which satisfies above criterion #2.
In his August 31 email response, Horn claims that I have sent him links to Collier's material as the "best evidence for Collier's authenticity!" That is a misrepresentation since I have pointed out to Horn on many occasions that there are many factors that need to be considered in validating the claims of a contactee. Documentation and hard evidence are the most desirable but these are not always publicly available. I have pointed out that in Collier's case I have chosen to accept his claims based on both the information that is publicly available in terms of online material, his personal qualities in terms of sincerity and integrity, the investigations of other experienced researchers, and the evidence that Alex Collier has confidentially provided in our private interviews. Therefore claiming that I use Collier's online material as the "best evidence" of his authenticity is a misrepresentation. Horn therefore satisfies criterion #3.
As far as heated rhetoric and insulting language, even Horn would agree that he has problems in that regard as evidenced by his March 2006 public apology to veteran researcher Paola Harris who also supports the authenicity of Alex Collier (see: http://www.gaiaguys.net/Horn.harris.3.3.06.htm ). In his apology, Horn acknowledged saying "some very unkind, inaccurate and unnecessarily hurtful things to her." Despite his apology, Horn continues to use ad hominem attacks and heated personal responses to other researchers using terms such as "unprofessional and bogus behavior", "self-important nonsense," 'phony "researcher,"' etc. Therefore, Horn satisfies criterion #4.
Fifth, Horn has openly attacked others seeking common goals in terms of investigating UFO/exopolitical claims. He has for example often attacked James Gilliland who has offered much empirical evidence to substantiate his claims concerning UFOs/extraterrestrials visiting his Mt Adams retreat. See: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/eceti/message/2837 . Horn has also attacked researchers such as Randolph Winters who distanced himself from the Meier case after earlier supporting it. Horn's emails and public statements are clearly attacks on my support of Alex Collier and competence as an exopolitical researcher. There are many other UFO/exopolitical researchers that he has openly clashed with and publicly attacked which show that this is not an uncommon modus operandi of Horn. Therefore, Horn satisfies criterion #5.
Sixth, Horn declares that he is the authorized media representative of Billy Meier. He apparently was given this appointment by the FIGU organization (see: http://figu.org/) which was created by Meier, rather than Meier himself who disdains personal titles of any nature. FIGU as an organization, according to my own private research, has been infiltrated by the intelligence community. It is therefore feasible that FIGU was compromised in its appointment of Horn whose true role may have well been very different to simply promoting the Meier case. Horn publicly takes the position that Meier is the only scientifically validated extraterrestrial contactee. Presenting himself as Meier's media representative, Horn attacks researchers supporting other alleged extraterrestrial contactees regardless of the evidence presented, and goes to great length to exclusively promote the Meier case. He therefore has established a useful "cover identity" from which he can attack researchers in the exopolitical community. Horn in this case satisfies criterion #6.
Seventh, Horn in all our correspondence tries to make public divisive issues that might be more easily resolved in a confidential and respectful manner. In his Aug 31 email he sent his posts to a number of researchers including Victor Martinez in the hope that Martinez would publicly circulate Horn's views, thereby earning him public attention. Horn's earlier public statements on my support of the Collier case have been done in the interest of getting as much public attention as possible rather than resolving a divisive issue in a more confidential and respecful manner. Therefore, Horn satisfies criterion #7.
Based on his past behavior, public statements, and recent email exchange, my conclusion concerning Michael Horn is that he is an agent provocateur who is consciously working for a group/agency desiring to disrupt, antagonize and create friction in the exopolitical community. As to whom that group/agency is, once can only guess. Now that he has been exposed as an agent provocateur, I hope others take note of his disruptive tactics and take appropriate action.
In peace
Michael Salla, Ph.D.
http://www.exopolitics.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/exopo...essage/519
Aloha, recently agent provocateurs were exposed at a protest at the North American leaders summit in Quebec, Canada where they tried to incite confrontation and violence at a peaceful protest (see: http://tinyurl.com/yo6tms ). Agent provocatuers are not just active in political protests, but also present in the exopolitical community. It's important that objective criteria are found to identify agent provocateurs who can be very disruptive and divisive in the exopolitical community. Before exposing someone I believe to be an agent provocateur who has been a disruptive force in the exopolitical community, let me begin by first explaining how to identify an agent provocateur.
An agent provocateur (plural: agents provocateurs, French language, "inciting agent") is a person who secretly disrupts a group's activities from within the group. Agents provocateurs typically represent the interests of another group, or are agents directly assigned to provoke unrest, violence, debate, or argument by or within a group while acting as a member of the group. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur
Agent provocateurs are trained to foment dissent and heated argumentation for its divisive value in order to distract a group from its primary goals. Agent provocateurs do not seek to cooperate with others or find consensus positions in a difficult political or research environment, only to raise the levels of friction by focusing on wedge issues and by misrepresenting others. In doing so, agent provocateur will use the traditional tools of debate whereby they will present themselves as disinterested parties merely seeking the truth. In reality, their truth seeking is a thinly veiled disguise to disrupt, antagonize and provoke disharmony by making unrealistic demands in a difficult political or research environment. In 1953, the Robertson Panel recommended debunking individuals and evidence supporting the reality of flying saucers and the extraterrestrial hypothesis (see: http://www.majesticdocuments.com/officia...npanel.php ). The CIA was the main intelligence agency behind the Robertson Panel and used its recommendations to undermine UFO research. Consequently, the CIA and other intelligence agencies or like minded parties have used agent provocateurs in the UFO/exopolitical community.
There are a number of criteria we can use to spot an agent provocateur in the UFO/exopolitical community. Some of the more obvious are the following:
1. focuses on wedge issues,
2. uses debunking tactics,
3. misrepresents positions and arguments of others,
4. uses heated rhetoric and insulting language,
5. openly attacks others seeking common goals,
6. uses a suitable cover identity,
7. makes public divisive issues that are best resolved confidentially
It is important that agent provocateurs are identified since they can be very disruptive and divisive when it comes to conducting exopolitical research. This takes me to an individual who is active in the exopolitical community that based on his behavioral characteristics I have concluded is an agent provocateur.
Michael Horn is the "Authorized American Media Representative" of Billy Meier and exclusively promotes the Meier case as the only scientifically validated contactee case. The authenicity of the Meier case is not an issue of dispute between us since I have stated my view that Meier is a legitimate contactee, though I have disputed the exclusivity attributed to him by Meier himself and his supporters: (see: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/exopo...message/94 ). In his August 31, 2007 emails Horn once again challenged me on the merits of the Alex Collier case which we have publicly debated and disagreed over for some time (see:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/prepare4co...sage/15393 ). Regardless of this, Horn has continued to pursue the issue which has led me to release this statement. Based on his past behavior and recent emails, I believe Horn has exposed himself as an agent provocateur. Here are my reasons.
Over the last two years, Horn has repeatedly challenged me in my support for the Alex Collier case. Despite repeated responses addressing many of the issues he raises, he continues to revisit the Collier case even though we strongly disagree over its merits. In my correspondence, I have repeatedly offered him the opportunity to agree to disagree, but he has replied that unless I respond in a manner satisfying him, that I am perpetuating a fraud. I have on many occasions pointed out my reasons for believing Alex Collier is authentic. These are summarized here: http://galacticdiplomacy.com/Contactees-Collier.htm . Horn is free not to accept these but that does not invalidate the reasons I give. A wedge issue is one that clearly divides individuals or communities on one side or another of a debate. Since the Collier case is clearly a wedge issue and Horn refuses to move on to other exopolitical topics of common interest, then Horn satisfies the above criterion #1.
Horn claims that he is merely seeking the truth in demanding hard evidence or proof that Alex Collier is authentic. However, he crosses the line from being a "genuine skeptic" who takes an agnostic position given the lack of hard evidence to substantiate Collier's claims, to becoming a debunker wherein he says that lack of evidence means Collier is a fraud. For those desiring to know the difference between a skeptic and a debunker (or pseudo skeptic), please visit: http://www.ufoskeptic.org/ . Horn's position on Collier is that of the debunker who mistakenly leaps to the conclusion that lack of substantiation means someone is a fraud. However, absence of proof is not proof of absence. Horn has been active in the UFO/exopolitical community long enough to know this but he chooses to repeatedly ignore it in his attacks against Collier's and other contactees' authenicity. Therefore Horn is consciously taking a debunking position which satisfies above criterion #2.
In his August 31 email response, Horn claims that I have sent him links to Collier's material as the "best evidence for Collier's authenticity!" That is a misrepresentation since I have pointed out to Horn on many occasions that there are many factors that need to be considered in validating the claims of a contactee. Documentation and hard evidence are the most desirable but these are not always publicly available. I have pointed out that in Collier's case I have chosen to accept his claims based on both the information that is publicly available in terms of online material, his personal qualities in terms of sincerity and integrity, the investigations of other experienced researchers, and the evidence that Alex Collier has confidentially provided in our private interviews. Therefore claiming that I use Collier's online material as the "best evidence" of his authenticity is a misrepresentation. Horn therefore satisfies criterion #3.
As far as heated rhetoric and insulting language, even Horn would agree that he has problems in that regard as evidenced by his March 2006 public apology to veteran researcher Paola Harris who also supports the authenicity of Alex Collier (see: http://www.gaiaguys.net/Horn.harris.3.3.06.htm ). In his apology, Horn acknowledged saying "some very unkind, inaccurate and unnecessarily hurtful things to her." Despite his apology, Horn continues to use ad hominem attacks and heated personal responses to other researchers using terms such as "unprofessional and bogus behavior", "self-important nonsense," 'phony "researcher,"' etc. Therefore, Horn satisfies criterion #4.
Fifth, Horn has openly attacked others seeking common goals in terms of investigating UFO/exopolitical claims. He has for example often attacked James Gilliland who has offered much empirical evidence to substantiate his claims concerning UFOs/extraterrestrials visiting his Mt Adams retreat. See: http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/eceti/message/2837 . Horn has also attacked researchers such as Randolph Winters who distanced himself from the Meier case after earlier supporting it. Horn's emails and public statements are clearly attacks on my support of Alex Collier and competence as an exopolitical researcher. There are many other UFO/exopolitical researchers that he has openly clashed with and publicly attacked which show that this is not an uncommon modus operandi of Horn. Therefore, Horn satisfies criterion #5.
Sixth, Horn declares that he is the authorized media representative of Billy Meier. He apparently was given this appointment by the FIGU organization (see: http://figu.org/) which was created by Meier, rather than Meier himself who disdains personal titles of any nature. FIGU as an organization, according to my own private research, has been infiltrated by the intelligence community. It is therefore feasible that FIGU was compromised in its appointment of Horn whose true role may have well been very different to simply promoting the Meier case. Horn publicly takes the position that Meier is the only scientifically validated extraterrestrial contactee. Presenting himself as Meier's media representative, Horn attacks researchers supporting other alleged extraterrestrial contactees regardless of the evidence presented, and goes to great length to exclusively promote the Meier case. He therefore has established a useful "cover identity" from which he can attack researchers in the exopolitical community. Horn in this case satisfies criterion #6.
Seventh, Horn in all our correspondence tries to make public divisive issues that might be more easily resolved in a confidential and respectful manner. In his Aug 31 email he sent his posts to a number of researchers including Victor Martinez in the hope that Martinez would publicly circulate Horn's views, thereby earning him public attention. Horn's earlier public statements on my support of the Collier case have been done in the interest of getting as much public attention as possible rather than resolving a divisive issue in a more confidential and respecful manner. Therefore, Horn satisfies criterion #7.
Based on his past behavior, public statements, and recent email exchange, my conclusion concerning Michael Horn is that he is an agent provocateur who is consciously working for a group/agency desiring to disrupt, antagonize and create friction in the exopolitical community. As to whom that group/agency is, once can only guess. Now that he has been exposed as an agent provocateur, I hope others take note of his disruptive tactics and take appropriate action.
In peace
Michael Salla, Ph.D.
http://www.exopolitics.org
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/exopo...essage/519
