Banned TEDx Talk About Giants and Mounds!

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 15836
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:12 pm

PostMon Dec 30, 2013 1:51 am » by Spock


Image

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 15836
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:12 pm

PostMon Dec 30, 2013 2:03 am » by Spock


I totally understand your positions with this - I guess I just don't see TED as a media that silences alternative voices. Alternative narratives without ample substantiation, sure, but not simply for the cause of keeping the status quo in Time Line academia.

To not trust them with something like this would be to not trust them with anything, which I am not ready to do at the moment. One of my favorite talks is from TED...

http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html

Likewise, I do believe in giants of the past, and evidence in giants of the past - but this guy reminded me much of Steve Quale in his presentation - it's not that I couldn't get on board with the theory, it's that he presented good stuff, with bad stuff, and that is what blew it for me with him - as if he knew he was going to be presenting on TED, shot for the whole loaf - but would settle for half, and in the long run got the entire thing thrown out.

Why is it not okay to be 100% accurate when it comes to something like TEDx instead of presenting speculation as fact? Why is it not us holding TEDx up and praising them for setting a standard as opposed to crucifying them for yanking this one guys chain?

Is this guy 100% right, are his facts 100% accurate? Or is he presenting a smorgasbord of information to entice a crowd to jump in head first?

Not trying to be a prick, just asking from the heart here.

Initiate
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:51 am

PostMon Dec 30, 2013 2:05 am » by Rahkriga


Spock wrote:I really boils down to who you trust. "I scientist" ei; people from the fact checking crew at TEDx which doesn't wish to tarnish their name, or this guy.

I think one thing is clear, in the TEDx rebuttal, they brought up more than just 1 accusation against the mans claims - which should be further studied.

Personally I have no vested interest whatsoever, whether the guy is right or wrong, and actually, would love for him to be right - but at the moment, my trust is relying on the TEDx rebuttal, they have been a source for great information in the past and because of this one dude, I'm not going to throw the baby out with the bathwater on TEDx. It makes more sense to me, at the moment, that TED is right, and this man is presenting his wishes as science.


But I more than proved that "Ted" didnt even scientifically rebut Vieras claims. Most of his rebuttals didnt make any sense...they wernt even related to the statements he was supposed to be rebutting. Then.."Ted" cuts out parts of what Viera said. You trust that? Is it scientific to take what people say out of context..then reply with words that arent even related to the topic? None of "Teds" rebuttals were scientific. I showed that clearly and if you open your eyes and read that Ted letter..youll see that bs as well. Maybe you dont want to see the bs..in that cause..youre just begging to be lied to. "Ted" has an agenda. "Ted talks" forbids talks about GMO foods, natural healing, and consciousness...these also happen to be the same topics the NWO and tptb try their best to avoid. Seriously...you cant see the pattern?? Real scientist dont act in this manner and I dont understand why youre giving them a pass. That "Ted" rebuttal letter was nothing more than character assassination. There was zero scientific retort in that letter....zero

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 15836
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:12 pm

PostMon Dec 30, 2013 2:11 am » by Spock


I'll give you the benefit of the doubt Rahkriga and look into what you're saying. I was not aware about TED not talking about GM, although I disagree about about consciousness.

That for the points and it's a good place for me to start to attempt to answer this for myself.

Conspirator
User avatar
Posts: 2114
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:08 pm
Location: The outlet by the light switch

PostMon Dec 30, 2013 2:18 am » by Thebluecanary


Spock wrote:I totally understand your positions with this - I guess I just don't see TED as a media that silences alternative voices. Alternative narratives without ample substantiation, sure, but not simply for the cause of keeping the status quo in Time Line academia.

To not trust them with something like this would be to not trust them with anything, which I am not ready to do at the moment. One of my favorite talks is from TED...

http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html

Likewise, I do believe in giants of the past, and evidence in giants of the past - but this guy reminded me much of Steve Quale in his presentation - it's not that I couldn't get on board with the theory, it's that he presented good stuff, with bad stuff, and that is what blew it for me with him - as if he knew he was going to be presenting on TED, shot for the whole loaf - but would settle for half, and in the long run got the entire thing thrown out.

Why is it not okay to be 100% accurate when it comes to something like TEDx instead of presenting speculation as fact? Why is it not us holding TEDx up and praising them for setting a standard as opposed to crucifying them for yanking this one guys chain?

Is this guy 100% right, are his facts 100% accurate? Or is he presenting a smorgasbord of information to entice a crowd to jump in head first?

Not trying to be a prick, just asking from the heart here.


Spock, did you watch the Sheldrake TED talk or not?

Again, I'm not saying that Viera or his talk were perfect…but their rebuttal to him is not so hot either, and many of the things that they state as fact in their rebuttal are not strictly fact. They are things that are subjective. I have a problem with the idea that an anonymous committee of scientists has the power of censorship over things that they disagree with, dismissing them as untrue when in fact they can't prove that they are. That is so much the problem with alternative archaeological research anyway, and specifically the issues surrounding the mound builders and their history…it's a constant fight to get the information out past a scientific establishment that is pushing an agenda and not strictly "fact".

He already gave his TED talk…so why take it down? Why not leave it up for debate? Why ban Sheldrake because he shows some scientists an uncomfortable reality about themselves? I have a problem with them only so far as they seem to be upholding the establishment and pushing an agenda. I certainly enjoy TEDx talks and am not advocating that they be done away with, or saying that I'm not going to watch them in the future.

But why, when we disagree with something, do we have to make it go away?
Remember, in a real conspiracy, all players are pawns regardless of their rank.
-----Christopher Hyatt

Initiate
User avatar
Posts: 282
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 3:39 am

PostMon Dec 30, 2013 2:19 am » by TorJohnson


Thebluecanary wrote:TEDx also banned the talk by Rupert Sheldrake about the problems of scientific dogma. I believe it is posted above, along with the talk by Graham Hancock. By banning his talk, they actually prove his point.

There is the possibility, though not confirmable because the "fact checkers" hide behind anonymity, that the entire reason that Sheldrake's TED talk was banned was because it hurt the fee-fees of a self proclaimed "radical atheist" on the fact checking board.

Condemning alternative theories as "bad science" has long been a tool for suppression of theories that don't fit the scientific dogma. I'm not saying that Viera is infallible. But there is plenty of real information out there about the mound builders and the discovery of giant bones (many of which have been returned to their native american "descendants" and reburied due to NAGPRA). And I don't find much of the TED team's rebuttal of Viera's video to hold water. I can't help but wonder what TED might have "banned" as bad science 100 years ago...


All that coupled with Eddie Huang's testimony of TED being a sort of elitist cult (see below) makes them irrelevant to me. They can push whatever atheistic transhumanist agenda they want, I and many others now know them for who they really are.


Upload to Disclose.tv



If Galileo were alive today he would be called a "pseudo-scientist" like Rupert Sheldrake and his radical ideas suppressed from the public. Religious or atheist, people in power simply suppress ideas which threaten the establishment.
Truth-seeker. Useless eater. Amateur historian. Goy. Enkiite. Follower of the Lord Jesus Christ.


Upload to Disclose.tv


Initiate
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:51 am

PostMon Dec 30, 2013 2:26 am » by Rahkriga


Spock wrote:I totally understand your positions with this - I guess I just don't see TED as a media that silences alternative voices. Alternative narratives without ample substantiation, sure, but not simply for the cause of keeping the status quo in Time Line academia.

To not trust them with something like this would be to not trust them with anything, which I am not ready to do at the moment. One of my favorite talks is from TED...

http://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_s_powerful_stroke_of_insight.html

Likewise, I do believe in giants of the past, and evidence in giants of the past - but this guy reminded me much of Steve Quale in his presentation - it's not that I couldn't get on board with the theory, it's that he presented good stuff, with bad stuff, and that is what blew it for me with him - as if he knew he was going to be presenting on TED, shot for the whole loaf - but would settle for half, and in the long run got the entire thing thrown out.

Why is it not okay to be 100% accurate when it comes to something like TEDx instead of presenting speculation as fact? Why is it not us holding TEDx up and praising them for setting a standard as opposed to crucifying them for yanking this one guys chain?

Is this guy 100% right, are his facts 100% accurate? Or is he presenting a smorgasbord of information to entice a crowd to jump in head first?

Not trying to be a prick, just asking from the heart here.


Heres what "ted" gets away with

1. Only allowing speakers that support the status quo
2. "fact checking" without any source for the facts they claim to have. Simply proclaiming something is not fact checking..and when I fact check them..it doesnt pan out
3. Taking people of context. Ted mangled what Viera said more than once
4. Siding with Monsanto and not allowing ANY talks about GMO foods or talks about eating healthy
5. Banning perfectly legitimate scientific talks simply because they are 'too politcal" or 'too controversial". That right there is censorship and possibly revisionist..but like I said.its maintaining the status quo for sure

I caught TED in lying, taking this guy out of context, and character assassination..I wonder how many times this happens and people dont catch it. Im not a fan of getting censored science..maybe you are..but there are some of that arent, and we easily see thru this. Youre taking the word of people you cant see, dont know where they studied or what they studied. They have money....that we do know, but nothing else. Most of TEds vids are people rambling on about their opinions just like Vieras did, and many of their subjects can be debated just as easily. But since theyre in line with the staus quo, and TED is written in big red letters...they go unchallenged. Thats dangerous and can end up being revisionist in nature. your a smart guy..surely you can see some of what Im trying to point out.

Super Moderator
User avatar
Posts: 15836
Joined: Fri Jul 18, 2008 7:12 pm

PostMon Dec 30, 2013 2:32 am » by Spock


Thebluecanary wrote:
Spock, did you watch the Sheldrake TED talk or not?



I have not seen it. Will look it up now though, I got some time o listen to it.

Initiate
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:51 am

PostMon Dec 30, 2013 2:35 am » by Rahkriga


TorJohnson wrote:
Thebluecanary wrote:TEDx also banned the talk by Rupert Sheldrake about the problems of scientific dogma. I believe it is posted above, along with the talk by Graham Hancock. By banning his talk, they actually prove his point.

There is the possibility, though not confirmable because the "fact checkers" hide behind anonymity, that the entire reason that Sheldrake's TED talk was banned was because it hurt the fee-fees of a self proclaimed "radical atheist" on the fact checking board.

Condemning alternative theories as "bad science" has long been a tool for suppression of theories that don't fit the scientific dogma. I'm not saying that Viera is infallible. But there is plenty of real information out there about the mound builders and the discovery of giant bones (many of which have been returned to their native american "descendants" and reburied due to NAGPRA). And I don't find much of the TED team's rebuttal of Viera's video to hold water. I can't help but wonder what TED might have "banned" as bad science 100 years ago...


All that coupled with Eddie Huang's testimony of TED being a sort of elitist cult (see below) makes them irrelevant to me. They can push whatever atheistic transhumanist agenda they want, I and many others now know them for who they really are.


Upload to Disclose.tv



If Galileo were alive today he would be called a "pseudo-scientist" like Rupert Sheldrake and his radical ideas suppressed from the public. Religious or atheist, people in power simply suppress ideas which threaten the establishment.



:flop: :clapper: :flop:

Well said!!! But see.... some people want to be lied to. I always got a bad vibe from the ted talks vids, but I never took the time to do research about them. I ASSUMED it was a group of scientist supporting other scientist..but that is far from the case and I found that out clearly today. I guess some people feel or think they are "smart" for letting TED spoon feed them. That letter was mooooore than enough proof they have an agenda..and it should be clear to others receiving oxygen to their brains. The more I dig into TED talks...the shadier it becomes. Id have to overlook a lot nefarious activity to even begin to entertain what they put in front of me....

Initiate
Posts: 919
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:51 am

PostMon Dec 30, 2013 2:42 am » by Rahkriga


Spock wrote:
Thebluecanary wrote:
Spock, did you watch the Sheldrake TED talk or not?



I have not seen it. Will look it up now though, I got some time o listen to it.



Hopefully you can see the irony of that video getting banned. There no legit reason why that should be banned. It got banned because it challenges the status quo...its obvious!!
Last edited by Rahkriga on Mon Dec 30, 2013 2:43 am, edited 1 time in total.


PreviousNext

  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post
Visit Disclose.tv on Facebook