Jim Vieira’s talk removed from Internet


It is with great regret that I must remove Jim Vieira’s TEDx talk video: Stone Builders, Mound Builders and the Giants of Ancient America from the internet.

Without going into the details here, I am attaching a letter – below – that I just sent to Jim which explains why I have made this decision. Rest assured, I did speak with Jim yesterday via telephone before sending this email. He was respectful, professional and personally supportive of me, and our community. Nevertheless, this is a hard lesson for me to learn as the TEDxShelburneFalls curator.

I invite your questions and comments about this unfortunate situation. Please post your comments at our online forum or write me directly. You may also comment directly to the wider TEDx community at: http://blog.tedx.com or write to TED headquarters at tedx@ted.com

Look forward to a live, face-to-face, forum in early 2013 to discuss next steps for our community. At the staff (volunteers/speakers) post-event closeout meeting earlier this month we discussed areas for improvement, successes and the future of our nascent community. There was an express desire to “do it again” next year and ~50 attendee feedback surveys concur. Please join us again to plan our collective future in this endeavor. Stay tuned.


Stacy Kontrabecki
Curator, TEDxShelburneFalls

14 December 2012

Dear Jim,

As you know, I have been receiving a lot of queries regarding your TEDx talk and challenging the scientific validity of some of what you presented. I, for one, have been deeply gratified by the on-line response to your talk even though a number of the YouTube comments have challenged your presentation.

As a result of these challenges, and challenges to other science-based videos from other TEDx communities, TED issued a detailed memo from TED on how to vet science-based speakers and discourage “pseudo-science” with respect to potential TEDx presenters. I wish I had received this before assembling our presenter group.

In any case, I agreed with the TED team, who felt they had to do a fact check based on these guidelines. While I concur with much of what the fact check revealed, I am still grateful for your presentation at our first TEDxShelburneFalls conference.

Basically, TED’s fact check found that your talk is based on a debunked popular hoax from the early 1900s and promotes a well-known and widely discredited fringe theory, while misrepresenting the existence of legitimate research on this issue. (TED/TEDx is not a platform that allows unsubstantiated claims to be put forward as science.)  Here are just a few specific examples of the unsubstantiated claims in your TEDx talk:

  1. At 2:03 — You claim: “These structures are so staggering that people don’t even think they exist still.” In fact, there is a general archaeological consensus about the impressive civilization demonstrated by the moundbuilders in Cahokia and similar sites.
  2. At 4:05 — You claim:  “The moundbuilders who built all kinds of structures.” All evidence for the moundbuilders’ architecture suggests that they built with sod packets and wood.
  3. At 4:19 — You mention carbon-dating but do not specify what was carbon-dated. You cannot carbon-date stone. Again at 6:00.
  4. At 7:26 — You mention Mayan theories. Since the recent deciphering of almost the full Mayan script, the astronomical preoccupation attributed to Mayan writings has been largely discredited. Most of the numbers found in the Mayan script are now believed to be dates of births, coronations and wars.
  5. At 9:15 — You share newspaper clippings from the 19th century, including quotes from Abraham Lincoln, and claim they are evidence of giants. In fact, as one of our experts writes, “Skeletal hoaxes were common in the 19th century (e.g., Piltdown Man, the Cardiff Giant, and Barnum & Bailey Fiji mermaids [now at Harvard’s Peabody Museum]). If (and this is a big if) the 8-foot skeleton is real, it could be a case of medical gigantism, but it is more likely a case of exaggeration.”
  6. With respect to the theories of gigantism, the TEDx fact checkers spoke to an expert who researched Middle Woodland and Mississippian skeletal collections at the Center for American Archaeology (CAA), based in Kampsville, IL, in 2007. The CAA is one of the largest repositories of excavated Woodland and Mississippian skeletal remains in the nation, and their osteological collections are available for student and scholarly study. One expert stated “I can assure you that the archaeological Woodland and Mississippian populations were not giants. In some cases, one can observe a slight decrease in average height (a few centimeters) with the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture. This is a trend that is observed in many cultures that undergo an agricultural transition, and is likely related to shorter nursing times and increased early childhood grain consumption (maximum height is highly correlated to childhood protein consumption, so a high reliance on grain during childhood tends to result in shorter stature).”
  7. At 12:49 — “Bones crumbled away because they weren’t mummified.” Skeletal preservation and mummification are unrelated processes. Plenty of skeletons survive in New England, and the disappearance of any and all skeletons that could lend evidence to these claims today is highly suspect.
  8. With respect to repeated claims that the Smithsonian is hiding or covering up evidence, the fact checkers also heard this, as well: “In 2007 I was a visiting scientist at the Smithsonian Museum Support Center, and while it is full of amazing and bizarre material (e.g., an entire herd of elephants that Teddy Roosevelt shot occupies one floor), there is no conspiracy to cover up or hide Native American giant skeletons or artifacts. Like most museums, the Smithsonian displays less than 1% of its collections at any given time, meaning that a lot of material spends decades (or sadly centuries) in its vaults awaiting exhibition. We can debate whether or not this is responsible stewardship (a debate that would also have to include a discussion of the chronic underfunding of public museums and the economics of public education), but to portray the Smithsonian today as part of some sort of a conspiracy of ‘misinformation and corruption’ to cover up Native American history by hiding giant moundbuilder skeletons excavated in the 19th century is ridiculous. Smithsonian physical anthropologists have published an impressive body of literature on the analysis of their collections.”

The bottom line for me, Jim, as a TEDx curator, is that I need to support the criteria that all science-based TEDx talks I hope to present must be fully substantiated. Unfortunately, as a result of TED’s research, we will be removing your talk from the TEDxTalks YouTube channel.

You may contact the TEDx team at tedx@ted.com.
Address your correspondence to Lara Stein, TEDx Director and Emily McManus, TED.com Editor.

Thanks for your understanding.

Stacy Kontrabecki
Curator, TEDxShelburneFalls

[[See the Forum page on this site to add/view more comments.]]

62 thoughts on “Jim Vieira’s talk removed from Internet

  1. Maybe the TEDx organization can develop a similar entity that can discuss issues that are presented by individuals like Jim Viera, Graham Hancock, and others who put forth serious time and research into such matters. Matters that pertain to archeology, geology, and natural phenomenon.

    I understand that there are a lot of people with crazed ideas who feel like their ideas are worth spreading. but with serious scrutiny emphasized on the amount of time it took for the research to be put together can be a determining factor on who gets chosen to present their material.

    Researcher like Jim put forth many years of research into their claims. How accurate is it? well that can be determined by further research from outside sources. What I’m saying is that Jim is opening up different avenues of research and thought that can lead to future revelations of old North American civilizations. How else can we find the truth if it is not for people like Jim pushing the academic envelope.

    Thanks for time,


  2. Well Helena, your point is good but it doesn’t apply in this case.

    What I’m curios about are the reports from past “false or true” claims of discovering giants skeletons. There are articles about giants found near Bucharest, Romania; 4-5 meters giants found at Mihailesti, Giurgiu, near the Argedava town (2nd century AD)

    We should see some reports from Smithsonian or romanian museums about this.

  3. These complaints against Jim’s talk were clearly petty and warranted no more than a warning, or a request for clarification.
    Unfortunately, Jim offended the guardians of traditional dogma. The challenges to his presentation were very petty, but since the implications of the evidence indicate a very different history than the analog timeline of the progression of evolution from simple to complex.
    And there was a well-documented submission of artifacts which challenged the traditional paradigm from another amateur archaeologist which strangely disappeared.

  4. Pingback: Banned by TEDx – Giants of Ancient America by Jim Vieira | Verum Et Inventa

  5. I wanted to thank to TED and all people ingaged in selecting and approving the videos! If it wasn’t for you I would probably never pay attention to people like Shaldrake, Hancock, Viera and Lipton! Thank you for banning them as they ideas will probably continue to shine finding their place and context, while this “TED corporation” will continue to “spread the (paid) ideas their corporation find worth spreading”.
    Thumbs up TED, you are lighting the way!
    And PLEASE do not change your politics, do not ever lift the ban on these videos /ideas!
    It works so perfectly well!

    • I want to thank you for thanking team ted with the respect and appreciation one would employ on opposite day. And might I add that ted really told’m what for with this tidy dismissal of mayan knowhow- “astronomical preoccupation attributed to Mayan writings has been largely discredited. Most of the numbers found in the Mayan script are now believed to be dates of births, coronations and wars.” wown’whatnot.

  6. I really liked Jims video it makes perfect scene. it also lines up with the bible that talks about giants. to bad evolution is such a big lie & that people who believe in it go to such great extents to hide the truth. god bless the people who speak up & tell the truth. Jim you have great info go somewhere to someone that will appreciate your research & keep up the good work. I have seen a few things in my life that are pretty intriging. like Fossil Lake in the Oregon desert where i grew up all kinds of fish & sea creature bones in an old dry lake in the middle of the desert at least 300 miles from the ocean. I am 60 yrs old & had not heard of the mounds & such in the usa so they are doing a good job of hiding the truth but sooner or later the truth comes out.

  7. The gist of Jim’s research is that there is a (probably) conscious effort to suppress ‘outside the box’ revelations. TED’s actions are ample support of Jim’s work. Thank you TED. Well said.

  8. Here’s the thing. It’s being discredited because of a handful of hoaxes around 1900. But what he uses are not those hoaxes and involve respected archeologists and historians and official town histories. Respected news outlets repeatedly say that the samples are taken to the Smithsonian. Where are the reports? Surely they keep intake logs. Will a FOIA request gain access to the records or actual remains?

  9. You cant carbon date stones….lol duh but he DIDNT say that at all he said was the mounds were carbon dated which you can do with organic matter inside the mounds like they do with any archaeological site. smh. Wow what a character assassination. And “All evidence for the moundbuilders’ architecture suggests that they built with sod packets and wood.” WTF the Egyptians SUPPOSEDLY BUILT THE PYRAMIDS AND TEMPLES WITH COPER CHISELS AND GRANITE ROUND STONES WITH SAND. Your pathetic with your attacks on this man trying to make him look stupid or crazy.

    Lesson here TED & TEDx talks have been compromised and are NO LONGER a place for NEW IDEAS and NEW THEORIES but to tow the corporate dumb us down propaganda line. AND GUESS WHO PICKS WHAT TOPICS ARE “APPROVED” OR NOT MYSTERIOUS HIDDEN “ANONYMOUS” SECRET PANEL OF ‘SCIENTISTS’ (but the “scientists” claim is unproven with no facts to back it up isnt that right Stacy Kontrabecki its a two way street). So secret anonymous panel of people purposely hidden and kept from the public is censoring ted talks that dont fit the the suppressed and censored history or tow the corporate line please explain how that is not a conspiracy to take over the TED talks and push propaganda that is in-line with big pharma, Monsanto, Du Pont, and other corporations to keep their profits coming……..

    • BRAVO! Ted sucks anyways – more disinfo than anything. Scientist told to toe the line or their grants and/or tenure will be gone. Get real The Smithsonian has scooped up all of the goodies and disappeared them. Then, they re-write history, like George W. Bush was the most popular POTUS ever. Lynn Cheney did a lot of re-writes too.

  10. Well, thanks to TED I know that the Smithsonian and many other formerly credible sources (quoted in the newspapers of the day) have all conspired, for decades, to trash their scientific credentials by reporting the excavation and examination of Giant skeletons.

    I look forward to the TED explanation of this as much as I look forward to TED’s “Fiction Checkers” determining what was carbon dated, and by whom – this is ENTIRELY VERIFIABLE – before claiming Jim Vieria is an idiot who claims that you carbon date stones.

    Science = study that REVISES theories in light of new evidence that is demonstrable and verifiable. Is this what you think you’ve been doing?

  11. The removal of this talk is not censorship. Nor is the removal of the talks by Sheldrake or Hancock that everyone got in a big tizzy over. TED is an organization. People can feel free to submit whatever they would like to an organization, like the New England Journal of Medicine or Fox News for example, but that organization is under no requirement to publish those submissions. I am sure that scientific journals and news outlets receive their fair share of submissions that are discarded for many different reasons. Perhaps the article wasn’t researched enough, or perhaps the claim is just outright false. I don’t think that many people would cry censorship if a Medical Journal chose not to publish a study done by someone who is not a medical professional that alleged a cure for cancer lay in not drinking water anymore. Choosing not to publish material that is poorly executed (Sheldrake), poorly reasoned (Hancock) or poorly communicated (Vieira) is not the same thing as “hiding the truth”. TED is not the final arbiter of all scientific thought. They are a group that has some cool talks and posts some videos that are sometimes interesting. That’s it. If they choose not to post something, they aren’t trying to hide it from you (you can find many talks about these controversial subjects all over youTube), they just don’t want their name attached to the content. Yes, this is a political decision. TED is attempting to build a brand that is associated with the scientific community at large. They want the TED name to be associated with truth and fact. Therefore they schedule speakers and publish videos that are grounded in truth and fact. Publishing a talk that is like those previously mentioned undermines the integrity of the brand because they are just bad talks.

    You see, TED is an organization that hosts some cool speakers, and puts the videos up online for your viewing pleasure. They do this completely free of charge. Some of the most brilliant living people have their words delivered directly to your ears thanks to TED. And we the people act like entitled children when one little thing doesn’t go our way. If this was an actual censorship fight, I would be right there on the front lines with all of you. I have been on the front lines of that fight in other nations. But this isn’t about censorship. This is about a group, one that provides a free service, who pulled one video and got attacked by people who felt that they were owed something for nothing. TED, as a group, doesn’t owe the public anything. It is we who should be grateful that such a thing exists. It may not be a perfect system, but TED is, in the grand scheme, very new. People have been killed across history for expressing views in a manner that TED gives a platform for. Hell, people were probably killed today for expressing their views.

    Lets just have a little context here, and not start screaming about injustice until we know what injustice actually is.

    • Well said, Brother I am so sick and tired of people whining endlesssly about Ted this and Ted that. I am a sceince student and there is know chance that Ted was wrong. Nun.

      Darryl Forests

      • Good thing you aren’t an English student. It’s not about TED videos being free or the viewers feeling “entitled.” The issue here is that they chose to let him speak, then they posted the video only to pull it down. Other TED videos don’t seem to have gone through this kind of rigor and debate of facts. Many of the “facts” that they claim to be inaccurate are actually opinions. Many talks center around opinions and feelings rather than fact. Ideas are most often not based on fact but hypothesis. I’m not saying Jim’s talk isn’t factual, just that the logic of this removal makes no sense.

        • You know. You make a good point that I overlooked. I agree with you, the double standard is off-putting. But, ultimately it’s their call. Right or wrong.

  12. I saw the original video and it was fascinating, whether true or not. Historically, several ‘facts’ we know to be true today were laughed at in their own time, from “the sun revolves around the earth” and “the earth is flat (thank you Bugs Bunny for giving me the truth on that one lol)” to today’s knowledge that ulcers are caused by bacteria because for so long the truth was known to be :EVERYONE KNOWS BACTERIA CANNOT SURVIVE IN STOMACH ACID! H. Pylori, as is common knowledge !!NOW!! survives quite well and is counteracted with appropriate medicine, but as little as 30 years ago was considered the basest of false accusations. Well, here is another truth for you.

    Contact information (billing information for the website registrant)
    TED Conferences
    Dan Russell
    250 Hudson Suite 1002
    New York
    Phone: +1.2123469333
    Email Address: hostmaster@ted.com

    It might also benefit everyone to look up TEDx conferences (which is listed as a NON PROFIT organization); even wikipedia has interesting reading on the subject.

    This is publicly available information. Express your thoughts to the appropriate person on whether you agree with blatant censorship or would like the opportunity to see Jim’s video in it’s entirety. I must state here and now ” I am not a child, and you are not my mother. DO NOT TELL ME WHAT I CAN AND CANNOT SEE, BELIEVE OR THINK. EVER. YOU DO NOT HAVE THAT RIGHT.
    This is NOT North Korea or Syria. Don’t give the Government, in whatever context, the right to censor our thoughts and ideas. Shame on you TEDx! SHAME ON YOU!
    Let’s keep TED not only open, but worth viewing. Or do you agree with them that the only videos we can see are the ones that they decide we should see?

    • I agree with these comments. I read the section in Wikipedia on TED-related controversies. Who is Chris Anderson to decide what is science and what is not?? Or, for that matter, to what aspects of the disgusting and growing wealth inequality in the USA are taboo subjects from which the ears of the great unwashed need to be protected. Anderson apparently will allow only apolitical factors to be discussed within the framework of TED. The problem is that all of the factors contributing to the the distribution of wealth in any country are part of the “political economy.” Ever heard of that, Chris???? Anderson has no visible background in science or political economy. I would like to see a genuine CV for Anderson. This self-satisfied “curator” describes himself as a “change agent; connector; event planner; Global soul; idea generator; Journalist; Philanthropist; Potential employer [!!]; Producer; Social entrepreneur.

      One “hat” he failed to mention: Bloviator.
      Who the heck is this creep and who has made him the operative censor of TED?

  13. I am done with TED, period….I had hope, but that has faded now…Is Jim 100% correct in this presentations, I am not sure, but I can tell you this, censorship is a 100% certain to end free thought, which right or wrong, is an integrable part for humanity to learn and grow

  14. Isn’t TED supposed to be about spreading ideas? Aren’t ideas more philosophical than fact-based? Ideas make us think or even look internally, often resulting in an epiphany of sorts. Ideas aren’t always right but they always make us think or open debate. The removal of this video only fuels the conspiracy debate and makes me lose the respect I once had for the TED organization.

  15. I think it is interesting how related Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake’s talks are to Jim’s (both of which were removed from TEDx and then reposted after widespread public outcry). Sheldrake in particular argues that the predominant current way of thinking about our own existence, the science delusion, limits our understanding of our experiences. This is the premise of Jim’s talk and the reason it was removed. I can’t in words express my anger and frustration for this blatant censorship. Seems as though TEDx is bought and paid for.

  16. I used to enjoy TED Talks but the fact that they took this man’s work down put a real damper on how I now view them. It seems that instead of being about spreading thought stimulating ideas TED is more about towing the line and promoting the old school propaganda. There’s two reasons they took Jim’s Talk down, 1) it goes against the establishment propaganda message, 2) Jim doesn’t have all the alphabets, such as Phd, behind his name. Therefore, he isn’t considered intelligent enough, he isn’t one of the intelligent elites. I’m lucky enough to have gotten those letters from an university but I’ll be the first to tell you that I have met quite a few people, who never went to an institute of higher learning, that were way more intelligent than I. Those letters don’t equate to intelligence, they simply mean someone was blessed enough to be able to spend years at a university instead of in the real world working for a living and solving real world problems. I have been independently researching the subject of giants for years and there is no doubt in my mind that they did exist. Also, there is no doubt that the fact they existed and the proof of that existence has been hidden from the common citizen.

    • I agree with Raymond: TED’s taking down this whole program and making it unavailable for further viewing and analysis flies in the face of scientific comity and really vitiates the value of TED for me. My attitude toward the TED folks has changed dramatically and I no longer take the group seriously. Which is not to say that I would never watch a TED show, but I wouldn’t go out of my way to attend their events. When people ask me to volunteer my time for a local TEDX event I’ll decline (with a sense that those sweet volunteers are kind of wasting their time!).

      The Jim Vieira episode is not a referendum on giants, etc. It is actually a referendum on TED itself. That is the irony here and I wonder whether TED even “gets” it.

  17. The simple truth is that Jim’s factually based evidence documenting the existence of giants in past history flies in the face of evolution. The TED people are obviously drones of the evolutionary establishment and anything that contradicts that view point is censored. If Jim had stood there and told everyone they had descended from monkeys or slime, his talk would not have been censored but hailed as ‘true science’. There is no bigger hoax than evolution!

    Jim is obviously not a scientist (and that probably is what gives him such believability – he is not trying to push a view point) but he is an independent thinker and that is one thing the ‘establishment tier 2 scientists’ cannot tolerate – someone who thinks for themselves and dares to question what they say. Why on earth do the TED people go to such lengths trying to bring into question Jim’s assertions that giants of 7, 8, or 9 ft. existed in the past when we have people today who have reached those heights? Are they absolute idiots? They obviously think everyone else is. Good job Jim – keep up the good work!

    • I’m replying to my own comment – which has been ‘awaiting moderation’ for 3 weeks. Is the TEDx moderator incompetent or just intimidated that someone actually confronts their hypocrisy?

      • I apologize for this. I have been traveling like a crazy person for work for a month and didn’t think to check this forum. Please accept my apologies. Thank you for the reminder via email. That is always a good way to get my attention. If you know anyone interested in helping to moderate this forum, I’d love the help.


  18. Pingback: Ideas worth spreading in Shelburne Falls | Pioneer Wired

  19. Ms Kontrabecki, you cite Jill Bolte Taylor’s account on TED as evidence that ‘proven facts’ are not the only things that feature on TED –THE ONLY REASON TAYLOR FEATURED ON TED WAS BECAUSE SHE WAS A DOCTOR –THAT IS ALL END OF! If it was an ordinary person (and there are many with such experiences) you would have treated them the same as Mr Vieira. Doctors are GOD as far as those who control our society are concerned and they can say and do what they like, and it goes. Now that’s a fact. Do you want me on? I’ll expose doctors.

  20. I, at least, have trouble with the third item “fact checked”:

    “At 4:19 — You mention carbon-dating but do not specify what was carbon-dated. You cannot carbon-date stone. Again at 6:00.”

    This was in regards to the America’s Stonehenge site in Salem, NH. We know the site has two charcoal hearths that were discovered and carbon dated 2000 BC and 175 BC. This is undoubtedly what Jim was referring to in his talk and this could have been easily fact checked by TED, by calling the site or querying the Internet. So, that fact was not checked, instead it was assumed Jim was referring to carbon dating of stone, which we all know is not possible. If this is the extent of TED fact checking, I don’t put much stock in it.


  21. This is censorsip plain and simple… I have a saying… Thank God we do not all get what we deserve……..otherwise we would all be in a world of “crap”……One day….the censors are going to miss some information that may be vital to their health or survival……while I don’t hope for it……censors certainly the ones who deserve to miss out on the info

  22. Censorship doesn´t like non- mainstream research if it doesn´t fit the paradigm and never has:
    This is censorship not debate as everyone precludes to. These type of buildings can also be found in Nth Africa and the UK and as to say there are no giants goes against the Bible and much other evidence.

  23. While it’s clear that Jim’s presentation was attempting to connnect some rather distant dots, it doesn’t mean that the dots cannot independently exist. His points about the mound builders being misunderstood and certain structures being incorrectly identified seemed extremely obvious.

    TEDs handling of this situation has officially identified the line that it can no longer cross due to the amount of self-importance that it places on itself. Loosing credibility in the mainstream scientific community would be devistating to TEDs profit source.

    Follow the money trail if you want answers.
    Follow your heart if you seek the deeper questions.

    • very well-stated. Jim’s piece could be reduced to 5 minutes with all facts, but they would have found a reason to censor it because he brought up The Kochs and big big money and the ways money is used to hide the truth…
      Some of the theories are not accurate, but the fact that he brought up the ways that science has been used to justify the destruction of the peoples and cultures that came before was powerful in and of itself.

  24. Mr. Vieira refers to more than a thousand historical published documents, spanning several decades, many attributed to various authorities. This quantity is difficult to fathom in the context of Stacy’s rebuttal claim 5. This claim would have us believe that just about everybody excavating burial mounds for several decades between the 19th and 20th centuries opted to perpetrate a hoax. This is as incredible as the apparent information it seeks to debunk!

  25. I’d love to have heard the conversation where Stacy is told “I don’t care what the hell you have to tell that Vieira guy, what part of WE TOLD YOU TO TAKE THAT CONVERSATION OFF IMMEDIATELY DID YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?”

    Just shaking my head at this gal. I used to think she would stand up for herself.

      • As to your below comment that ted and tedx only deal with ‘proven facts’ – this is utter nonsense. Jill Bolte Taylor, probably the most famous of all the ted lectures was a scientist who had a stroke, a neurologist at that and she described her experience as a rational person realizing that parts of her brain were shutting down and her rational acts to contact someone to help her while this was happening. She knew her memory was going so she kept her finger on that last digit of the number she was dialing so that she could complete the call for help, this took she thinks 45 mins just to dial out an entire number. However she also described a feeling of expanding into the universe, an all-ness and a certainty that she would be OK. She described in the most compelling way (one of the reasons millions of people have viewed her lecture) the utter metaphysical experience that she had. A thing that no one can prove or disprove for that matter. I picked this lecture because its the most famous but I could call on Aubrey de Greys talk on physical immortality, or Jane Goodall”s lecture on the superhumanity of primates, or Keith Barry’s magic, or for that matter Al Gore’s nonsense ‘truth’, or Brian Greene, on string THEORY. But what I would like to leave you with miss is Alain de Bottom’s description of success and happiness. You should soul search my dear and then come back and tell the truth. It doesnt matter if Mr. Vieira is telling the truth or not, it is utterly dishonourable to silence him thus. Shame on you all

  26. One more thought – it is sadly disrespectful to our ancestors and loathing of ourselves to claim that ancient mounds, pyramids, sculptures and arts could not be created by ourselves & our grandmothers & our great-grandest family. No aliens, no giants, no atlanteans, no mysteries. We human beings ourselves can create great wonders (and awful sins) when we reach deep inside our very real human potentials together to achieve the miraculous.

    • Yes, well. If there were some tall Indians who built mounds and stone structures, I find that to be really interesting. Why disrespectful? Jim was reading from historical texts, books, and reports from persons who excavated bones and mounds. Regardless of what one concludes of the evidence, it is certainly interesting. Why remove the all his info? I certainly didn’t know there were stone structures like that in New England which resemble megaliths in Europe. Censorship is so 15th century people. It sickens me.

    • But science isn’t supposed to be swayed by someone’s opinions about what our ancestors would think. It’s supposed to be swayed by facts, to the extent that they can be established by proper methodology and respectful debate — not summary rejection, which gets us nowhere.

      Science 101 teaches us that summary rejection is itself pseudoscience of the first order, partly because it throws out the baby with the bathwater. Bona-fide science would consider the possibility that Vieira’s work might be partially correct, despite its weaknesses, and would proceed to separate the wheat from the chaff in time-honored fashion.

  27. I was shocked that TED accepted Jim’s talk, happy that Jim got large press, and curiously waiting for the responsible response from the scientific community. TED has a reputation to uphold, but they cannot simultaneously claim copyright ownership of something which they do not wish to own as their own. Jim and his followers have a right to share his video work stripped of TED branding. As for Jim’s claims of conspiracies and ancient mysteries, unfortunately, such emotional claims call to our darker sides but seldom (and i say seldom, not never) hold up under the disinfecting sunlight of the day.

    • Oh really? In light of Tedx’s recent debacle with Sheldrake and Graham, I suppose “your” sun still shines with the light of truth, science, and the virtuosity of “Ted”. Your notion, sir, that science hasn’t and doesn’t obfuscate, cover up, and lie about evidence that decries their paradigm is elementary and addled. Intellectual naivety is no excuse for pigheadedness. The idea that literally thousands of newspaper articles from across the globe describing these creatures with alarming similarity, reports from numerous respected historians and archaeologists of the day, were ALL hoaxes, is preposterous. As preposterous I suppose as believing that Tedx really gives a damn about “spreading ideas”. The good news is that by judging by the intelligent, open minded, responses here, YOUR position is about as tenable as a fair trade agreement with China. Thank goodness!

  28. I have my biggest problem with this discrediting reason given in the letter:
    “At 4:05 — You claim: “The moundbuilders who built all kinds of structures.” All evidence for the moundbuilders’ architecture suggests that they built with sod packets and wood.”——————————————————-
    I must say, my problem with this reason is the interpretation of “all kinds” because it was assumed he meant “many different materials” and thereby was wrong. However, taking that quote, we can build all kinds of structures using the same materials.

    We modern citizens of anywhere in the world can take iron and steel and build “all kinds” of structures out of iron and steel. We can build all kinds of structures from steel. From buildings to rail roads and more.

  29. The examples you use in your letter to justify removing the video are non-issues, irrelevant asides, and taking a figure of speech as something else. And you choose to give credence to experts on the opposing side, while giving none to Mr. Vieira. There will always be two sides to an argument. And who are you to say they’re right and Mr. Vieira is wrong? Really, all you’re doing is making the video much more famous and in demand. While impugning your own credibility.

  30. It seems to me that it would be more intellectually honest to invite speakers with opposing viewpoints to present the arguments against Mr. Vieira’s contentions. Simple removal of the material is more an approach of censorship than of scientific debate. Given this approach, I would expect that TED would act to deny almost any idea access to its venue unless it was “proven,” also known as accepted by the orthodox scientific community.

    History shows us time and time again that what is correct today may well be proven incorrect tomorrow. A balanced forum is far better than censorship.

    Is Mr. Vieria incorrect in his assertions? Quite probably. So what? Bring on the debate, not the censors.

    • Tom buddy,

      This is one of the best ideas that I have ever heard in respect to TED. I absolutely love it! You hit the bull’s eye all around all aspects of this.

      “A balanced forum is far better than censorship.” I love it! This is a TEDx event. They can easily open up and invite any TEDx to speak against or on behalf of Vieria.

      I have been listening to an Mp3 of Vieria’s recent show on Coast to Coast AM. I really want to believe him and the way he talks on the radio is very convincing. However, the examples given in letter from the TEDx curator are worded and chosen so well that they are very discrediting to Vieria.

      I would like to see a new tree branching themed type of video forum where for example as you find Vieria’s talk you will find talks about it. But you can also go back a few levels or branches until you get to the main trunk of the site from where you can chose the field that you want to start watching and make your way to more and more specified videos. Does this make sense to anyone? Does it sound good/interesting?

  31. Mishelle,

    Perhaps you missed the memo. Ted X doesn’t want Jim Vieira’s lecture and information he presented at their venues to be viewed by anyone anymore anywhere. His video in just two short weeks invited 118,000 views 1400 likes, 100 some dislikes. It was going viral, and his sort of information was not in the interest of certain scientific institutions, such as the Smithsonian Institution (and a few others).

  32. Dear Stacy and all, while I really appreciate you making this information public, because I was very confused when I went to watch this popular talk and could not get access, I would like to also mention that it’s unfortunate you must completely dump the material instead of present it with the above as a disclaimer. I’m sure you can understand how to the average person, just a curious viewer who is not a scientist, would feel that it looks suspect to suddenly remove material that the public is very interested in seeing. Every minute fact doesn’t need to be correct for it to have social value, though I understand for scientists it must be very frustrating to see false information in their area of expertise be used publicly. Still, it looks to the layman as a support for conspiracy theory, a top-down decision, over-riding public wishes, and controlling the flow of information and theory. With all due respect for your excellent programming, I hope you will reconsider this decision, or tell the public where else we might view this material.

    • While many of the ideas Vieira puts forth in this talk are creditable, many apparently are not. TED & TEDx only present proven facts in the field of science. I was asked to take the video down by TED headquarters. You can access Jim Vieira and his other works through this page. His TEDx talk will not be publicly available through us. Any other person or organization re-posting the video is infringing on copyright laws and should be reported. TED headquarters can be contacted at tedx@ted.com

      • Though I question the validity of Mr. Vieira’s subject matter, one can honestly view the handling of the TEDx video and your response here as a matter of censorship. When you have to point out copyright infringements, it leaves a rather bitter afterthought to the whole matter.

        • Why does this site keep canceling my reply? I agree withe sentiments expressed by both York and Gregory Swain. TED presents all kindsn of speculative stuff. I have seen it myself, for example, in Woods Hole TEDX. So what ‘s with the heavy-handed copyright infringement threat? Is TED too worried about establishing a real dialogue with evidence about Vieiera’s ideas and evidence? It is circular reasoning to say that the very people whose science Vieira has questioned are the arbiters of what is “accepted science.” Put it all out there, leave it all out there, and let the evidence be the arbiter, not an interest group, or a groupi that is starrting to look a heck of a lot like an interest group. Frankly, I am shocked that the Vieiera material has been censored. I have seen enough TED stuff to know for sure that there are “establishment” scientists who would chalenge many presentations, or parts of presentations. The “science” argument is, sorry, BS.

      • But TED does not “only present proven facts in the field of science”, they present all sorts of interesting ideas as per their namesake mandate, and Jim’s presentation was not intended to be a scientific presentation but rather obviously a historical observation based on the, um, concrete field evidence and historical record. Moreover, Jim presentation could fall under the “Entertainment” mandate of TED, as clearly many folks are interested in the ideas presented, but should fall under the “Discovery” aspect of the TED mandate as the “Technological” attributes are as yet unverified precisely because of the ignorance of the academic community and failure to properly study the evidence presented by Jim. As a graduate history major and anthropology minor I can attest to the fact that neither discipline is a “science” but rather a consensus that fluctuates depending on funding.

What's your idea worth spreading?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s