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
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,
Authorized American Media Representative
The Billy Meier Contacts
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 BastTED Conversations TeamWe 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,
Authorized American Media Representative
The Billy Meier Contacts
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
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.
The scientist refuse to openly examine the Billy Meier case because if they acknowledge it as a real Extraterrestrial contact case,they feel as though they would be out of business which isn’t the case,they could then investigate it and learn so much more about there own field of science.But we all know they are the arbiters of truth with egoism too big to learn from others.
From the Huff Post article: “Yes a modern-day Galileo may be out there with paradigm-shifting ideas that will at some point overturn huge pieces of existing science.” Indeed. Oh Teddy TED, why not be the ones to introduce this “modern-day Galileo” to the world and have Michael Horn on your program to present the Billy Meier case???!!!
Would love to see you present this information on TED. It is provocative, challenging and worthy of debate and discussion. Too bad it’s too controversial a subject to garner some discussion and debate in that forum.
Such organizations, like TED, give an appearance of being ‘cutting edge’, when in reality it is more a sham-appearance. They will not come around until to such unconventional truths until an Elon Musk (for ex.) does.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/326152872708419585/photo/1
I informed Elon, via twitter, that his wish of visiting Io in person, one day, had already been done.
https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/326152475205857281
I’m sure it will get lost in cyberspace but this is the kind of guy who would not, out of hand, knee-jerk style, reject such a possibility.
Now, our “so-called vaunted leaders and authorities” that most of us “obediently follow” are like the “older bullying bad-boys on the island” who seize authority and control… because they are temporarily free from being under actual “adult supervision.”
Therefore, these “more aggressive and bullying type boys” seize power “and set themselves up as” authoritarian type rulers over the majority of the other boys on the island. Naturally since they are bigger, stronger, and in many cases more intelligent… this seems to be a good way to survive on the island, and so they convince us to allow them to lead/rule us – “in the absence of the real adult supervision world” that we originally came from…
Unfortunately, this negative leadership situation, of their making, rapidly deteriorates into “AN AB– — — USE OF POWER” by these negative aggressive type boys.
…You can read the novel for yourself (or even better, just view the 1963 version of the movie, which is excellent… you can look this up on wikipedia, etc.)
The bottom line: I think the world we live in, and the leaders and authorities we subscribe to and follow, are a very close parallel to the “plight of the boys” on the island. The boys have to “govern” themselves, since they suddenly find themselves without adult supervision – like kids left along in the classroom, when the teacher suddenly leaves them temporarily unattended.”
So – in my opinion – our “so called leaders and authorities” are “little more than bullies” who made themselves our leaders… “in the absence of the real authorities and teachers” …who are “only temporarily absent…”
(of course the “bad boys” like and become accustomed to “being in power”… so they are in no hurry to “be back in their former adult-run world” where their desires to “rule over others” were frustrated and frowned upon by real adults…
here’s “something – I think is – very close to the truth” of the “way things are!”
if you look at: William Golding’s “Lord of the Flies” …this to me is probably one of the “best examples of humanity’s condition on earth”… we are like the “lost boys” who find themselves shipwrecked on a deserted island.
Now, our “so-called vaunted leaders and authorities” that most of us “obediently follow” are like the “older bullying bad-boys on the island” who seize authority and control… because they are temporarily free from being under actual “adult supervision.”
Therefore, these “more aggressive and bullying type boys” seize power “and set themselves up as” authoritarian type rulers over the majority of the other boys on the island. Naturally since they are bigger, stronger, and in many cases more intelligent… this seems to be a good way to survive on the island, and so they convince us to allow them to lead/rule us – “in the absence of the real adult supervision world” that we originally came from…
Unfortunately, this negative leadership situation, of their making, rapidly deteriorates into “AN AB– — — USE OF POWER” by these negative aggressive type boys.
…You can read the novel for yourself (or even better, just view the 1963 version of the movie, which is excellent… you can look this up on wikipedia, etc.)
The bottom line: I think the world we live in, and the leaders and authorities we subscribe to and follow, are a very close parallel to the “plight of the boys” on the island. The boys have to “govern” themselves, since they suddenly find themselves without adult supervision – like kids left along in the classroom, when the teacher suddenly leaves them temporarily unattended.”
So – in my opinion – our “so called leaders and authorities” are “little more than bullies” who made themselves our leaders… “in the absence of the real authorities and teachers” …who are “only temporarily absent…”
(of course the “bad boys” like and become accustomed to “being in power”… so they are in no hurry to “be back in their former adult-run world” where their desires to “rule over others” were frustrated and frowned upon by real adults…
The Meier/Plejaren evidence is definitely of the caliber given by typical TED Talks presenters. The issue is not one of quality of evidence, but rather degree of standard deviation from the norm.
At this juncture, perhaps TED Talks can only handle the idea of extraterrestrial life in the form of fossilized micro-organisms found in meteorites, or of the theoretical possibility of life-supporting planets in nearby solar systems.
”the kind that wouldn’t look through the telescope in Galileo’s day”
I really love how you finished!
P.S.
TED is a very respected group, and for good reason. I think that they feel that it is taboo, it is out of line and they would lose respect, credibility or support by even considering it.
A believer from the catholic church wouldn’t look through the telescope because (a) s/he already knows there is nothing to see or (b) it is heretical to do so, in other words it would be taboo. They would probably also feel a cognitive dissonance between on one side, their wish to know and understand, and on the other side, what it is expected of them by their peers.
It is a shame that their own thinking, understanding, reasoning and discovery is so much controlled and defined by their thoughts and feelings. And by all things as something as understood as taboo.
Prunc.
Interesting take Mr.Horn. Here another link about TED that you may find interesting in read.Probably something is changing or “perverting” this somehow respected website TED :
TED FLIRTS WITH SCIENTISM
http://intellihub.com/2013/04/18/ted-flirts-with-scientism/
Thanks for the link.
Really. that’s that article writers “proof”?
Yes leave it to a religious person to use such sweeping generalizations about science.
(Not you, the person called “reality sandwich.”)
Mr. Horn,
That was a very nice article and well written. I agree with you that The TED Conversations Team is prejudicial, for many different reasons; but it’s also more than that. There are those that suffer from the Galileo syndrome and as you know; NASA air-brushes out any signs of UFO activity before releasing pictures or film footage.
My point is, I work for an aerospace company that employs around 6 former astronauts and former NASA upper management executives; I also work with one of the astronauts. I do know that while in space they use two communication lines; one for every day operations and the other line is for classified conversations which include UFO sightings etc. Not one of them will talk about anything that has to do with UFO’s. This is not their choice; this comes directly from the government and NASA. TED may be afraid to debate for that reason?
KAS
It’s so sad. I have seen this again and again with a lot of intelligent and nice people. They have made up their minds and no matter what kind of evidence you present, they simply ignore it or laugh it off. It has cost me many potential friendships over the years, talking about this stuff. Hopefully it will bear fruit someday.
Yes, it goes both ways there.
You would think if there was another group that claimed similar things to Meier, Ted would at least let them do these testings just to see what comes up.
how it goes with existing science/sudo-science: a trip down “memory lane!”
back in the early nineties (circa 1990) I had just gotten into computers… had just acquired one of the latest MSDOS based desktop computers… I was planning to get a job (elec engr level) that required someone to be fluent in Dbase and Lotus 123…
a. my computer had an “8088“ processor (with the old 640k mem processing type limit)
b. had less than “one gigabyte” of total “hard-drive” memory
c. ram was something like 1 or 2 megabytes
d. had an MSDOS based “GUI” (graphical user interfaces) were popular (programs like Lotus 123, Dbase, were available in the Mall and other software boutiques, etc.)
but “all these programs” were mostly “MSDOS” based overlay type… they did work well… but were primarily for “biz and science” …and of not much use to the average person (outside of a biz use)
Anyway, at the time “Windows 3.1 was being pushed by Bill Gates”
most biz, scientific, AND PARTICULARLY THE “computing community itself” considered Windows 3.1 (GUI) A WASTE OF TIME…after-all it:
a. was a memory hog…
b. was dog-slow compared to “dedicated MSDOS GUI based programs like Dbase or Lotus123.”
c. had many glitches caused by the “hardware limitations of “ram memory” and since it was an “overlay” on top of, and depended on the underlying MSDOS, anyway (real OS, then) WHY BOTHER WITH IT AT ALL…
well this seemed to be “a very logical viewpoint” by the “so called experts” – particularly the “then computer PROS of the big hardware mfrs, etc.”
after-all: with the 640k basic processing limit… and 2mb of ram… (in other words: all kinds of “hardware limitations”)… SO ESSENTIALLY THESE “GREAT COMPUTER PROS AND SCIENTISTS… “rendered a WASTE OF TIME AND DOOMED VERDICT ON “MSFT WINDOWS!”
…according to these EXPERTS “MS WINDOWS was A SERIOUS WASTE OF TIME for anyone in the biz/scientific/computer-pro community to bother with or seriously entertain in any “way, shape, manner, or form.” FOR BLATANTLY OBVIOUS REASONS…
well WE ALL KNOW HOW THAT TURNED OUT: the EXPERTS… scientists/biz/computer-pros: “WERE ALL WRONG…ONCE AGAIN!” (something they would like you “not to remind them of…”)
IN “our PRESENT REALITY, NOW” …few use MSDOS… unless it’s “for nostalgia.”
and the reason for all this: BECA– — — USE THE SCIENTIFIC EXPERTS…are “routinely and recurringly” SHORT-SIGHTED… and/or they are under “great pressure” from the existing “hard-ware type mfrs” …AFTER-ALL their “next-gen” processors – that they were “ramping up production for” back then, were not going to be able to “process MS Windows” very well, anyway…
do you know that big “auto mfrs” require “several years” LEAD TIME to manufacture the “vehicle” YOU SEE IN THE SHOWROOM…
so, ALONG COMES SOMEONE LIKE A “TESLA” that introduces a nice all-elec. 4-dr sedan… BUT the existing big auto giant mfrs… CAN’T MAKE THE TRANSITION to “the new technology fast enough… they have “years of work and expense” put into the MODELS – that they plan on having you buy – SO THEY JUST WOULD LIKE “TESLA TO FAIL,” and “even better yet” for them to just disappear from the scene entirely”…
so that’s why all this TED type stuff… it’s OK if a Lotus or Dbase comes out with some “tight efficacious NEW ADVANCES to their software…but WHATEVER THEY DO…
don’t destroy the “whole MSDOS” based Paradigm… (and suddenly cause them to LOSE BIG…especially their “leadership and authority” power-base… where they are “accustomed to being the BIG CHEESE leaders and authorities that every one “cow-tows too” … and IN WHICH too many of their “vested interest buddies” have such extended capital invested… and will, therefore, stand to “LOSE BIG mucho bucks…” (it’s about like that)
BUT, inevitably, “the selfish motives” AND existing authorities WILL BE SWEPT WAY… in a way similar to the way in which “MS Windows – and the whole Internet development BUILT on top of that – “HAVE SWEPT AWAY…” most of those MSDOS “relics!”
Now, we have “personal computers” with terrabytes of hard-drive capacity… massive amounts of RAM…you can store/use massive amounts of data “including” multiple partitioned “operating systems” on one “smartdrive, hanging from your keychain”…AND OF COURSE the REAL BIG GAIN…THE INTERNET ITSELF …HD VIDEO/SOUND…all things that required AND ADVANCED GUI LIKE MS WINDOWS OS TO BE “BASED ON”…(of course now other stuff is coming out… but MS Win is still the best… (I use several linux distros, too, but MS Win is still the best all-around…so I use both, etc.)
so this was just another “historical case” OF THE “SO-CALLED AUTHORITIES AND EXPERTS” being WRONG … “one again…”
ONLY… a MATTER OF TIME… before we PREVAIL OVER these “footdraggin vested interest” types…and MAKE SOME REAL ADVANCES for the “MAJORITY OF MANKIND!”
“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.”
(Begin Satire)
Yes Mr. Michael, we comprehend that Mr. Billy is or might be in contact with extraterrestrials, we understand that “the initial question is logical and evidence-based, and the text of your conversation requests only reasoned, intelligent discussion”, we also grasp the fact that this would not be a new age touchy feely BS, we also realize that if this is real it could be the most important story in the history of human kind. We are just not the right group to have this discussion with!
(End Satire)
She’s lying to you so she doesn’t offend you, so she doesn’t hurt your feelings. A behavior extraterrestrials would just love about us. Who wouldn’t like to come to our planet and be lied and cheated at every step.
As Michael Helfert said in the comments above: “The issue is not one of quality of evidence, but rather degree of standard deviation from the norm.” They already made up their mind: this case is not real and not worth pursuing, it’s a waste of their time no matter what evidence is presented.
I also think this is a case of self importance. I think that they imagine that if extraterrestrials would come to our planet they would like to speak with them, with the ones with PhD’s, with degrees in science and technology, the important people, not with some farmer.
It’s a sad site to see.
Prunc
Well Michael, It seems as though the illogical P.C. speak people today are so emersed in, knows little bounds. Here we see that your attempt to solicit reasonable conversation and debate on the part of TED, regarding the Billy Meier case, is once again denied by a group that is trying desperately to avoid meaningful topics of discussion, while poorly implying that the topic could spur some controversy that they clearly cannot, or will not allow to take place. Rather than just tell you the truth of their stance, Mr. Bast seems to deflect the fact that it is their decision alone, by blaming the suspected response the topic might receive as the sole reason for HIS decision. To me and my way of thinking, this is just another example of how blind people really are, and how egoism, so easily identified by some, is so hard to identify by those that are so trapped by it. If the truth is truly what people seek, why should they care how many road blocks must be overcome to find it, as success is not determined by how quickly it is achieved, but rather that it IS achieved. If every time research is met with difficulties, we stop persuit of the answers, we would never find the answers, is it not our failures that eventually lead to our successes? Is a debate not a debate if there are not two sides to the argument?
I love your work Michael, Keep it up.