Graham Hancock

Someone is shy

Graham hasn't completed a profile. Should we look for some other people?

Comments & conversations

Noface
Graham Hancock
Posted over 1 year ago
The debate about Graham Hancock's talk
Thanks to all who have posted in my defence here. It means a lot to me. Big ideas are at stake, much larger than the individuals involved. But the knowledge that a community of good-hearted, open-minded people are out there, ready to fight for the freedom of ideas is the best thing to come out of this. Warmest wishes and deep appreciation Graham
Noface
Graham Hancock
Posted over 1 year ago
The debate about Graham Hancock's talk
I previously commented that I would not post further on this Blog page because it is so clearly designed to distract public attention from the disastrous way TED have handled their attempt to censor my “War on Consciousness” talk and Rupert Sheldrake’s “Science Delusion” talk. That in my view is the important point, for it bears on the future of TED itself as a viable platform for “ideas worth spreading”. I am heartened that so many of the 400-plus concerned people who have now posted here (and the 1000-plus who posted on the original Blog page) have refused to fall for TED’s sleight of hand and continued to press the organization to rethink its policy. Since TED have retracted and struck out all their justifications for the original deletion of my talk from the TEDx Youtube channel (http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-discussion-graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake/ ) and since they have published my rebuttal, and done the same re Rupert Sheldrake’s talk, I agree with Rupert on a new post he has made on this page (http://www.ted.com/conversations/17189/the_debate_about_rupert_sheldr.html). There are no more specific points surrounding TED’s misguided decision that he and I need to answer. Nor is it possible to make much progress through short responses to nebulous questions like “Is this an idea worth spreading, or misinformation?” But I now make this one further post, simply to add my voice to Rupert’s and to put on record that I, too, would be happy to take part in a public debate with a scientist who disagrees with the issues I raise in my talk. My only condition is that it be conducted fairly, with equal time for both sides to present their arguments, and with an impartial moderator, agreed by both parties. Therefore I join Rupert in asking Chris Anderson to invite a scientist from TED’s Scientific Board or TED’s Brain Trust to have a real debate with me about my talk, or if none will agree to take part, to do so himself.
Noface
Graham Hancock
Posted over 1 year ago
The debate about Graham Hancock's talk
My last post on TED I am weary and disillusioned by the way the folks at Ted.com have behaved. Yes they have retracted and struck out the inaccurate and misleading comments they originally made about my “War on Consciousness” presentation, and yes they have published my rebuttal of those comments: http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-discussion-graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake/ But their latest tactic (see here: http://www.facebook.com/Author.GrahamHancock/posts/10151560463442354 ) is so underhand and devious that I have decided I will no longer play their game by participating any further in their ever-receding Blog pages of “discussions”, all of which are designed to distract public attention from the disastrous way they’ve handled this matter. I see now that even if the public remains engaged and continues to express outrage on this new Blog page they’ve created, TED has prepared an exit strategy. As they state here they intend to shut the conversation down completely in less than two weeks. It remains my hope that free thinking people everywhere who have found any merit in my “War on Consciousness” presentation will upload it wherever they are able to on the net. I guarantee that I for one will not pursue them for copyright violation and that they will have my thanks. Now onwards to brighter and better things!
Noface
Graham Hancock
Posted over 1 year ago
The debate about Graham Hancock's talk
New and deeply disappointing TED tactic Just when I thought TED had seen the error of their ways and were trying to fix things I receive an email from TED Curator Chris Anderson telling me that yet another of their famous Blog pages – this one! -- has now been set up, apparently as a special standalone ghetto for discussion of my “War on Consciousness” presentation. This tactic helps to distance TED from the PR debacle they created for themselves by axing my talk from their Youtube channel in the first place (where it had attracted hundreds of comments and 132,000 views). Now not only is the presentation cut off from the discussion initiated by all those original commentators (and their ability to share it) but it is also cut off from the new discussion that followed exposure of TED’s censorship and shoddy methods – HERE: http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for-discussion-graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake/ AND HERE: http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/18/graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake-a-fresh-take/ . So far there is no link back or forward between the two previous blog pages and this one. I have asked TED to provide such links as a matter of urgency and to make them prominent but this will only slightly reduce the problem, not solve it. I’m left reeling by this continual slicing down of my presentation and its context which is nonetheless cleverly done so that TED can say, effectively, “we’re not censoring the presentation because it is on our website.” Well yes, but in such an obscure place that pretty soon no-one will be able to find it, the whole debate and furor will be forgotten and TED will be able to move forward as though this never happened. And just in case TED aren’t allowed to pull off that disappearing act they have imposed a time-limit on this new “conversation” which they will close in less than two weeks from now. Wow! Way to go TED.
Noface
Graham Hancock
Posted over 1 year ago
The debate about Graham Hancock's talk
On the related Blog page (http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/18/graham-hancock-and-rupert-sheldrake-a-fresh-take/) Tedstaff write: “TED and TEDx are brands that are trusted in schools and in homes. We don’t want to hear from a parent whose kid went off to South America to drink ayahuasca because TED said it was OK.” This is given amongst the justifications for the removal of my presentation, “The War on Consciousness” from the TEDx Youtube channel where it had received in excess of 132,000 views before it was axed. How therefore does TED explain its complete acceptance and endorsement of the content of Tim Brown’s 2008 presentation “Tales of Creativity and Play”, a presentation that has now received in excess of 842,000 views on the main TED Talks website (http://www.ted.com/talks/tim_brown_on_creativity_and_play.html) when this talk contains a clear endorsement (between 11 mins 57 secs and 14 mins 22 secs) of the psychedelic drug mescaline as a means to boost creativity by shocking people “out of their normal way of thinking and getting them to forget the adult behaviours that were getting in the way of their ideas” If you construe my presentation as dangerous because it might send a kid “off to South America to drink ayahuasca because TED said it was OK”, shouldn’t you also construe Tim Brown’s talk as equally dangerous because (since TED has said it was OK) it might send a kid off to consume mescaline in order to boost his creativity and perhaps even to benefit from the same sort of “great start with innovation” that Silicon Valley did. This is a serious question and I suggest it implies a deep double standard on the part of TED. If you don’t think it represents a double standard please explain to me why not.