|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| | [[Category:Meier Encyclopedia]] | | [[Category:Meier Encyclopedia]] |
| − | Good question. Its answered in several ways.
| + | It will take 800 years. |
| − | | |
| − | * There are many [[Books]] and this website and many others has seen a lot of work by volunteers.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * It is mostly comprehensive.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * The books are well presented.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * There's only around 20 thousand individuals which have picked the information up and developed an interest, its a small to medium sized community.
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Why haven't all the books been translated'''
| |
| − | | |
| − | * There hasn't been the resources and interest. It takes a lot of work to understand and translate all the terms and many of the terms are entirely new.
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Why isn't it presented like a beautifully illustrated encyclopaedia we can pick up from our local book shop.'''
| |
| − | | |
| − | * That's a possibility however;
| |
| − | | |
| − | or '''Why hasn't it seen a BBC Planet Earth documentary treatment'''
| |
| − | | |
| − | * There simply isn't the resources and interest to make it happen.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * There is plenty of demand or would be though. Just look at any random story in a film, its not necessarily popular because of the story, often simply for the fact that its been presented well and the story has been well cultivated and 'fleshed out'.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * Political correctness causes problems and theoretical ideas are difficult to present seriously.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * An organisation like that wouldn't go far enough with a presentation or couldn't go far enough even if there was the interest, because the medium of television and film itself is somewhat limited by maintaining interest long enough. It would have to be a 20 hours series.
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''How far would money take this information'''
| |
| − | | |
| − | * Any amount of money would go a long way.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * £10,000 for example would probably allow for all the works to be translated with a professional translation organisation. However FIGU doesn't allow for all the books to be translated, only the contact reports and even this with the contact reports is a very new policy.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * FIGU doesn't care about any third party presentations, media, websites etc, but if the original source material is used then that is not allowed.
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Is it just a money thing'''
| |
| − | | |
| − | * Yes
| |
| − | | |
| − | * £1.5 million pounds would probably be enough to fund a BBC Planet Earth style 20 hour documentary series covering all of the information and do it justice, be captivating enough and cause a vast world audience to look in.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * FIGU however in the past has taken extraordinarily large donations and not spent it on projects like this, and money doesn't go very far in Switzerland. So working with a team such as this websites 'futureofmankind' would have to happen to ensure it was orchestrated responsibly and equitably because there appears to be slight disparity in agenda's between official sites and non-official sites such as this one.
| |
| − | | |
| − | : However currently there is nothing setup in this direction for that to happen.
| |
| − | | |
| − | : We want the world to know about it and want to use the most powerful tools for it. Official FIGU instead takes the position that individuals will receive impulses and naturally find it. This Non-FIGU website 'futureofmankind' argues that by creating a media presentation and encyclopedia like the one found in a book store or on the BBC, then we'll be less confused about what its all about and the full extent of how deep the story runs.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * Projects of size do tend to require very large teams however, and the exact costs depends on how enthusiastic the team is; currently FIGU is voluntary, so this quantity of money would be enough to cause a global revolution probably.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * Much of it is fringe science knowledge so a team which had studied the information for a decade or more would have to have a role in gathering and sorting the information appropriately for a television production, to transform it into a workable format.
| |
| − | | |
| − | : It's very advanced knowledge most of it, and you may of noticed that television organisations won't entertain the notion of broadcasting anything that challenges the viewers too much, for whatever reason, so it would be quite difficult, not impossible, to produce a presentation like that.
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''That's not how funding works'''
| |
| − | | |
| − | * This is the largest pitfall actually, because typically only known subjects and veins of knowledge which already have a massive audience, typically culturally formed, receive that funding.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * Its fraught with risk and so anyone funding a project like this would have to be internal; meaning already overly familiar with the information and already familiar with the broadness of its scope and able, as well as willing to take the risk.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * It would indeed be a difficult pitch to a broadcast or cinema organisation. The BBC for example can only make nature documentaries because its publicly funded, Billy Meier's information is about human nature, but independent broadcasters rely on advertisers to advertise alongside programming, so it probably wouldn't be possible. Cinema tends to deal with fiction, and Billy Meier's information has nothing to do with fiction.
| |
| − | | |
| − | '''Is it too controversial'''
| |
| − | | |
| − | * Not necessarily.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * It would be no more controversial than some other things.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * Its a tough course in reality, so its never going to be particularly popular.
| |
| − | | |
| − | * At present if a feature is presented it has to be reference able to known scientific discovery and known things. This information is far too fringe even though with the work it could be presented beautifully and that pitfall could be worked around, a team could work out a way of working around that.
| |
