An UPDATE to the UPDATE!:

Hi Morton,

Just for clarity’s sake, by “this subject” what exactly do you mean?

While I haven’t seen/read everything produced by TED, I am unaware of any discussions on the scientific and legal standard of proof that is freely available for public viewing in the Billy Meier case. As I’ve taken great care to emphasize, the existing books and documents that bear copyrights establish ironclad proof of dates of publication.

Since our conversation is a matter of public interest, and record, is there some reason you choose to not acknowledge, let alone challenge, this claim? Your apparent reluctance to do so has become the mastodon in the room.

Are you still sure that you want to play the role of the Church in these very modern times…where people are encouraged to think for themselves?

Lastly, were the questions and points I raised really so difficult to respond to, seeing as they pertained precisely to the specific reasons you gave for not permitting the conversation, as in conversation among presumably self-responsible, intelligent thinking people?

Best,

MH

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

Hi Michael,

In the past, we’ve found that conversations on this subject get a disproportionate number of low-quality comments that detract from TED.com as a whole, so we’re choosing not to publish it. Again, thanks for understanding.

Best,

Morton

TED Conversations Team

E: conversations@ted.com

W: http://www.ted.com/conversations

We are on Facebook  and twitter: @TEDConversation

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

UPDATE: April 24, 2013

I just received another response, from TED Conversations via Morton Bast, to my initial proposal for a new conversation on the TED forum regarding the Billy Meier case. My response is below, with Mr. Bast’s message to me below it:

Dear Morton and TED Conversations,

Thank you for writing.

In consideration of the strange idea that not approving the conversation actually implies your agreement with it, and, since you didn’t cite any specific objections, refer to the actual evidence, question the credibility of the scientific experts who’ve examined and authenticated it, or refuted the copyrights, my questions are:

1. What do you presume I am “hoping” for?

2. If logic and evidence aren’t sufficient for a…conversation, just what is?

3. How do you already know it’s “prone to go haywire” and what – exactly – does that mean?

4. Is this the same response you give to everyone who is proposing a conversation about “logical and evidence-based” matters that meet scientific and legal standards?

But I really have to ask, do you have so little respect for the intellectual capacity of the TED community that you think your own condescending and pseudo-scientific response is the best that they could offer? Are you trying to “protect” them – as you imply that you are me – from grappling with potential truths that your own unsubstantiated preconceptions prevent you from testing in a truly objective…scientific manner?

And can you see why your purposefully crafted response imparts a cultic tinge to TED’s professional, scientific image?

Sincerely,

Michael Horn

Authorized American Media Representative

The Billy Meier Contacts

www.theyfly.com

 ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
Hi Michael,

Thank you for your email. I understand your disappointment, but please know that our choice not to approve your conversation at this time isn’t intended as an insult or an expression of disagreement with you — it’s unfortunately just not a conversation that we feel would go as you’re hoping. Even if the initial question is logical and evidence-based, and the text of your conversation requests only reasoned, intelligent discussion, certain topics are prone to going haywire, and this is one of them.
Thank you for understanding, and I wish you the best of luck in finding the right group to have this discussion with!
Best,
Morton Bast
TED Conversations Team

We are on Facebook  and twitter: @TEDConversation

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

There’s an article on the Huffington Post by the curator for TED in which he explains why they won’t present certain content, even by otherwise well respected, credentialed people because it’s viewed as “pseudo-science”, etc. Of course TED is entitled to present what it wishes and has provided some truly informative information.

I not only posted a reply on the HP site but I also responded to a few skeptics who came at me with the usual, predictable challenges and derision. Of course none of these skeptics could substantiate their claims that scientists had debunked Billy Meier’s evidence, that it was a hoax, etc.

I also joined the TED forum and proposed that a conversation about the Billy Meier case and its evidence be opened. Below you’ll find my response to their rejection of my proposal, their rejection and, below that, exactly what I proposed*. Please note that I referred to some of the actual highly respected scientific experts who authenticated Meier’s evidence and, most importantly, to the existence of ironclad evidence that meets our legal standard, i.e. the copyrights that are proof of Meier’s preemptive publication of accurate scientific information. Please also note that such – freely available – evidence is exactly what enables a claimant to prevail in a court of law by conclusively establishing that they were the original authors or, in this case, published the information before “official discovery”.

What better way to put to rest a decades long “hoax” than to have the best and brightest minds examine and discuss it publicly? Now that all the professional skeptics have retracted their claims, resorted to falsification, or been openly defeated, it appears that TED is closing a door on a provocative subject that its forum members certainly are mature enough to handle. But perhaps TED is worried that an unraveling of their own confidence and authority might result, instead of an easy win, etc.

Again, while TED has done good work and is entitled to present what they wish, to not allow the open discussion shows that they’re effectively another…Church, the kind that wouldn’t look through the telescope in Galileo’s day.

MH

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Dear TED Conversations,

There’s obviously a lot of discussion already going on, pro and con, about what TED feels is appropriate, “the right venue”, etc.

Of course it’s your forum and your choices. But, unlike “pseudo-scientific” claims that are and/or have been easily debunked, the Meier case simply won’t go away. That’s because there is no credible rebuttal to evidence that meets a scientific and legal standard of proof and because of the authentication of Meier’s evidence by respected, credible scientists. And certainly your response doesn’t refute our claims, our evidence, our proof, all of which is easily and freely available online…for those who have the courage to “look through the telescope”.

So I’ll just go on the record as thanking you for your time but also, pardon me, laughing at the prejudicial response, one that could have instead allowed the conversation and possibly, unequivocally confirmed your own opinion that, instead of this being the most important story in human history, it’s just an eight-decades long hoax.

Sincerely,

Michael Horn

Authorized American Media Representative

The Billy Meier Contacts

www.theyfly.com

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Re: Your TED Conversation

Dear Michael Horn,

Thank you for submitting your topic for discussion, but we don’t feel TED Conversations is the right venue for it. The full text of your conversation is included below.

For more information on what makes a great TEDConversation, check out our How-To page: http://www.ted.com/pages/conversations_howto

Sincerely,

The TED Conversations Team

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

*Title: A non-prejudicial, honest discussion on the best scientific – and legal – evidence for actual, still ongoing, extraterrestrial contacts.

Full Text: The topic of UFOs and extraterrestrials, often justifiably, is usually labeled pseudo science, which has made it difficult for real, verifiable evidence to be presented, let alone discussed.

The case in point is that of Billy Meier of Switzerland, who claims ongoing contact with extraterrestrials for over 70 years.

Meier’s information and still irreproducible physical evidence and has been authenticated by scientists like Michael Malin of the Mars Mission, David Froning of McDonnell Douglas, formerly skeptical, retired physician and scientist Dr. Sandford Weinstein and others. They are not pseudo-scientists.

In fact, copyrights legally establish Meier as first source, beating NASA and other scientists, worldwide, in publishing dozens and dozens of specific, accurate scientific information long before “official discovery”.

The best of the skeptics, James Randi, Derek Bartholomaus, CFI-West/IIG, Phil Plait, Michael Shermer, Stuart Robbins, etc., have all either retracted their claims of a hoax, refused to debate the actual evidence, or simply censored any mention of it. Why, if it’s just pseudo-science, have they retreated from trying to definitively expose it?

Has an extraterrestrial race – instead of using primitive radio waves and cryptic blips – spoken to us using an internationally respected language of legal proof – copyrights – that cannot be ignored if we are intellectually honest?

I have researched the case for 34 years and presented it internationally. I invite the discussion.


 

 

28 comments on “UPDATE: Why Won’t They Look through the Telescope?

  • What is this we will suffocate in the year 2020 we keep hearing about due to environmental collapse? Even if we switched to electric cars, those are still mostly ran on coal.

    Also, it’s been two months since you been on. I’ve been checking the blog to see if your still active. I’ve been a little concerned.D:

  • A platform like TED represents our ‘mainstream’ idea’s of how innovation works. That is: you can take a little step beyond the fringes of the science, and everybody will cheer at you for being so innovative. But don’t go to far! Because if you do people will start to feel uncomfortable with you, they don’t want to be associated with you, for they might loose status in the eyes of the establishment, they will walk away from you, despise you, or even attack you.

    Obviously the Meier case takes a giant leap beyond the fringes of everything we think we know about reality, and obviously it will therefore be suppressed and ignored, until we made so much progress ourselves that this giant leap is reduced to a little step.

    Unfortunately that will take centuries and it will be too late to prevent a lot of disaster and future generations will despise us for ignoring the knowledge that could have prevented this from happening…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *