BBC Horizon: Atlantis Uncovered and Altantis Reborn, 28 October & 4 November 1999
Further Comments About Episode 2 (part 4)
Subject: Horizon Comments
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 21:16:32 -0000
From: "The Building Site Team" <rob@grenfell53.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com>
As an impartial open minded observer, I support you in all you are trying to do. I have read your books. As an avid Fortean always remember that the scientists are the new religious authorities in the world and they are acting just as the religious authorities acted in the past.
It’s a pity that they can not see this, they do it do any one who takes a different viewpoint.
Carry on the good fight, I would encourage you to try for a right to reply with the BBC.
P.S. Another point to remember is most of your detractors earn a lot of money with their viewpoints
Subject: Horizon programme
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 1999 19:36:44 -0800
From: rgallant@uniserve.com
To: "horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com"
I would like to start by noting that I have only read the transcripts,
and have not viewed the program. However I have read a number of books
on the subject of civilisations pre dating those currently known or
pushing back the starting dates of known civilisations. In addition to
this reading I have an interest in cryptozoology and have noticed that
every time a supposedly extinct or ‘legendary creature’ is discovered,
mainstream science is amazed at the discovery, and this never seems to
open up their minds. This indicates an amazing closed mindedness among
the so-called experts. They seem to ignore any item that does not fit
their worldview. This includes many artifacts that predate even your
date of 12000 years, one set in particular, if dating of the stone tools
is correct would date to 250,000 BC (see for more details
http://www.dreamscape.com/morgana/cremo.htm). Given all
this anomalous data I would have expected at the very least a somewhat
intelligent response to your arguments considering that both sides only
have theories. However time overcomes most obstacles and at the very
least I hope your writing will encourage those with unconventional ideas
to speak up against convention and get some brain cells stirring.
Richard.
Subject:BBC programs on Hancock"s and Bauval’s theories
Date: Wed, 29 Dec 1999 05:31:47 EST
From: Analauramart@cs.com
To: horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com
Dear Mr. Hancock and Mr. Bauval:
I have just finished reading the transcripts of the "Horizon" program on your
work and I must tell you that I agree with your reaction to what was an
unprofessional, undignified, and absolutely biased presentation of your
theories. All of us make mistakes and have ideas, and you may be wrong about
a lost civilization, or about a connection between the Great Pyramid and the
stars in Orion’s Belt. But the BBC was not making an honest mistake: it set
out to destroy both of you, and it has only damaged its reputation in the
process because it acted with malice and bad faith.
I hope both of you will continue your work. It is valid and thought-provoking
and deserves a better medium than a besmirched state-owned corporation.
Best wishes and best of luck.
Sincerely,
Sergio Flores
December 29, 1999.
Subject: None
Date: Thu, 30 Dec 1999 15:23:06 -0500
From: Sylvia s Pittman <spittman2@juno.com>
To: horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com
I would like to comment on Graham Hancock’s work. He is carrying on the
work of an independant researcher in the spirit of exploration.
He also is breaking rules as regards standard academic standards and
particularly political protocols.
In spite of that he is making a wonderful and original contribution to
the knowledge and research of ancient civilizations. I hope he continues
and does not succumb to the corpocracies.
Thank you for your time and attention,
allen pittman
From: Levski [mailto:levski@home.com]
Sent: 31 December 1999 19:20
To: Graham Hancock
Subject: happy new year and new century
Keep up the good work, despite all obstacles and other people’s agendas.
I’ve read the downloaded letters, e-mails, comments which came as a result
of the Horizon program which we haven’t seen in North America, and I think
they say it all. It must be very comforting to receive that sort of support
from all over the place and to know that your courage and insight and hard
work are not disappearing into a vacuum.
May you have a very healthy and exciting 2000.
Kindest regards,
Sincerely,
Joy Richards, Toronto, Canada
Subject: Horizen
Date: Sun, 02 Jan 2000 12:48:29 +0000
From: tony.taylor3@pop.net.ntl.com
Reply-To: tony.taylor3@net.ntl.com
To: graham@grahamhancock.com
Dear Graham
I have just watched a tape of the second Horizon
programme and it went much as I expected. I remember seeing them do
similar hatchet jobs on Erich Von Daniken and Nostradamus. I know you do
not particularly like to be associated with Von Daniken but now perhaps
you may be able to sympathise with his feelings after his ritual
slaughter. As with you they simply picked the weakest aspects of his
theory and totally ignored the strongest evidence.Best wishes for your
continuing research.
Tony Taylor
tony.taylor3@net.ntl.com
p.s. I have tried everywhere to get hold of a hardback copy of
‘Fingerprints of the Gods’ but with no luck. Amazon & B.O.L. both
advertise it but neither ever has it in stock. If you know of anywhere
could you please let me know…thankyou.
Subject: The most respectful pioneer in searching for the new look on human horizon.
Date: Sun, 2 Jan 2000 10:35:08 EST
From: Tjou@aol.com
To: graham@grahamhancock.com
Dear Mr Hancock,
The name of you and your research team should be properly stated and
mentioned to our present and future generation. I think it is about time for
those who claim to be the best in the mainstream academic to step down from their
arrogance and study how the people they constantly criticize have brought
new light and inspiration to the human horizon. I am looking forward to see that
one day these cowards could be brave enough to admit that the ‘way’ and the
‘things’ that they are fiercely protecting contribute nothing but only
help to ensure their living. It seems the statement is a bit too harsh, but
it is so true. To be living in this very moment, people like you should really
ignore these dark side and keep on your good work. Whatever they say, the
history is on your side and till then, We’ll see! Thank you very much.
Yours Truly,
Teresa Jane Ou. Hong Kong, China.
Subject: Re: HORIZON
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 20:59:41 -0000
From: selleyc@cpw.co.uk
To: graham@grahamhancock.com
CC: selleyc@cpw.co.uk
Dear Graham,
I know you are very busy so I will keep this email very short.
I greatly looked forward to the Horizon programs as I have found it to be a
reasonably fair program in general ,although a programme on heavy metal
rock fans in the late 80`s was a bit biased in portraying many as devil
worshipers. I was quite distressed watching the first program due to the
heavily biased way it presented the "Lost Civilisation" argument. I had only
been recently introduced to your works after reading "The Crystal Skulls"
and then reading "Finger prints of the Gods" and "The Mars Mystery" yet
after years of skepticism in regards to prehistory I found a compelling
argument for an alternate explanation that was above everything else LOGICAL
.At the end of the program we were told that the following week the other
side of the argument and we all know how well THAT program "presented" the
other side of the argument.
What disappointed me most was the Horizon program makers had descended
To tabloid journalism. The same kind of journalism that looks for a scapegoat
and not the truth. The kind of crass journalism that one would certainly not
expect from the BBC who are renowned for their quality programs. And this
was a science program???? Interestingly the icing on their cake the "LEO"
pattern had to be the most pathetic attempt to debunk your theories and
proved only that they were clutching at straws. I’m sure if I followed their
line of argument I could find such patterns in my bathroom-although I doubt
they are dated at 2500BC (or 10,500 as may be with the Sphinx).
As we enter this new millennium I hope that the argument will be far wider
reaching .I am sure though that petty minded stitch ups will not prevent
further questions posed by your work that your detractors did not even
remotely answer nor offer any viable alternative.
Yours Sincerely
Craig Selley
Subject: Horizon
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:26:12 EST
From: DFerg22683@aol.com
To: graham@grahamhancock.com
Dear Mr. Hancock,
With reference to the above programme, when you recover from your justifiable
anger, you should be flattered:
Stage 1: Thinkers whose views have never come to the attention of academic
orthodoxy.
Stage 2: Thinkers whose views can simply be ignored by academic orthodoxy.
Stage 3: Thinkers whose views should be contemptuously dismissed by academic
orthodoxy.
Stage 4: Thinkers whose views need to be debunked by a mendacious hatchet job
on behalf of academic orthodoxy
Most of us never get past stage 1. You should feel very proud of your
achievement. Please feel free to include this e-mail on your website among
other messages of support.
David Ferguson
Subject: Persevere!
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 11:14:36 -0800
From: "John Aycock" <john.aycock@metro.net>
To: <graham@grahamhancock.com>
CC: <aimee.marsh@metro.net>
Dear Mr. Hancock,
I have spent some time on your website and enjoyed it very much. I first became aware of your work through a television
program here in the USA about your expedition to trace the history and whereabouts of the ark of the covenant. Later, I watched
one on the same cable channel ( The Learning Channel or Arts and Entertainment, I don’t remember which) which documented your
work with Mr. Bauval on the similarities between the arrangement of the pyramids in Egypt to that of the stars comprising the
"belt" in the constellation of Orion.
The evidence for a deliberate reproduction of the stellar arrangement by the builders of the pyramids seemed very compelling
indeed, especially as the ancient Egyptians are known to posses sophisticated mathematics and astronomy. In light of this,
the response of established Egyptologists to your conclusions seemed baffling to me; at first. The idea that other "experts," who are obviously aware of the sophistication of these ancient people, would attribute this remarkable similarity to sheer coincidence is ludicrous at best. I now realize that MOST scientists who have any kind of reputation or respected body of work will reject out of hand any idea which contradicts the "mainstream" consensus, for fear of looking credulous to their peers. This is true not only in archaeology and astronomy but also in other disciplines as well.
In the last couple of years I have made an effort to follow the intriguing work of researchers who are courageous enough not to
defer to the narrow-mindedness of the "authorities" in their respective fields, and who forge ahead in an effort to uncover the truth- even if it means revising long-standing scholarly traditions. These researchers include Rupert Sheldrake, Jacques Benveniste, Ralph Abraham and others, notably yourself and your colleagues Mr. Bauval and Mr. West. There are so many so-called anomalies in our bodies of scientific knowledge that it seems certain these bodies are at best incomplete. I have always
thought that the job of science is to determine the truth of things, regardless of whether it makes us uncomfortable or proves our earlier conjectures wrong. It can be shown that at the basis of nearly every current scientific "given" is a theory on which subsequent conclusions are based. It seems that while the job of Science is uncovering the truth, the job of scientists is to cling to the status quo until an alternate view proves to be nearly unassailable, and then, finally, accept the new view and even take credit for it themselves if possible. I suppose scientists are only human just like everyone else, but as you point out in your writing, the openly hostile attitudes toward new or contradictory ideas is uncalled for. This dismissive and derisive mindset is extremely counterproductive to the advancement of science, and I find it shameful that so many learned scholars yield to peer pressure and perpetuate such a petty and thwarting tradition. I thank you for your diligence and applaud you for your fearlessness in your work.
Very best regards,
John Aycock
Sonoma County, CA
USA
From: Darryl Smith [mailto:darrylfs@primus.com.au]
Sent: 04 January 2000 09:11
To: webmaster@grahamhancock.com
Subject:
Dear Graham, hello to you and gday from the land down under. Firstly I have all your books and having read them find that they
are far more plausible than nutters like Von Danikien, and much much much more exciting and thought provoking. Ever since I
was young, say about 16 onwards, I myself have been under the impression that things are not as they seem, that history is
different to that which is taught in schools the world over. Yourself and others like Bauval, Wilson, Schoch etc, etc, have been
doing a fantastic job in trying to educate a largely ignorant world that chooses to look but not see. Persistence pays off in the
long run and to quote a certain TV series "the answer is out there". Keep doing what you are doing and never give in or give up on your quest.
Thanks a million Darryl Smith. 05/01/2000.
Subject: Your Work
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 01:43:23 EST
From: MARYNELL70@aol.com
To: graham@grahamhancock.com
Dear Mr. Hancock,
I am late to your work, I have only recently read all your books, but have
found them both informative and interesting. I find my stomach in knots
while reading them because of the great lengths that the mainstream
scientists (which should be in quotes) go to ignore and debunk your efforts.
I hope that you will never give in to this form of literary and "scholarly"
destruction. The BBC special on you was horrible and I hope that your
replies to that distortion were as widespread as their report. Keep up the
good work. If you are ever in Hawai’i look us up.
Rob Williams and Family
Subject: Horizon prog.
Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2000 22:47:08 -0000
From: "Dean Edward Holt" <ozzyhair@totalise.co.uk>
To: <horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com>
Dear Mr. Hancock,
Having just read your letter to the BBC complaining of the ‘hatchet’ job done on yourself and Robert Bauval, I felt
compelled to add my own comments on the two episodes of the Horizon programs, "Atlantis Uncovered" and "Atlantis Reborn".
Firstly, I would like to point out that I am a layman where archaeology, geology and astronomy are concerned but I do have a fairly good understanding of the basics written in Fingerprints…Keeper of…and Heavens mirror. I have found all three books very eye opening to say the least and after reading the evidence you and Robert Bauval (The Orion mystery) put forward, I feel it is logical, fair and very likely that the First Time, zep tepi, was and still is marked at Giza by three pyramids, a Sphinx, Angkor Wat and many other sites around the world.
So, on to the Horizon Progs.
After reading your letter, I thought to myself, that could have been me that wrote it. All the points that you mention, I fully agree on and said so to others at the time.
I got the impression that the BBC and the producers were, as you say, ‘doing a hatchet job on you’ and tried very hard to ( and this is a personal view ) to compare you with the lunatic fringe and one person in particular, Erich Von Daniken. Honestly, I was getting that impression not too long into the first program. Fair enough, I’m not an academic but I have read your books And fully understand what you are saying ( I have since learnt a great deal from all three books) and I for one am willing to accept your evidence and theories.
I think one of the most pathetic attempts to blow you out the water was the comment made about the ‘upside down plan’ of Giza. As I have said, I am no astronomer but what Ed Krupp said about the correlation between Giza and Orion’s Belt being wrong was ludicrous. Anyone with an ounce of intelligence can see quite easily that the two, Orions Belt and the ground plan at Giza are the same and were constructed to represent a mirror of the Heaven’s as seen in 10,500 BC.
I really felt that the programs were solely aimed at discrediting you and Robert Bauval in a way that I would attribute to the daily tabloids. They weren’t out to test your own evidence and well thought out theories but to de-bunk them in any way possible.
I must admit, that at the end of the second prog. when they made the comparison with buildings in New York and star constellations, it left me thinking, oh shit ! But after some thought, I had thankfully came to conclusion that you made about New York not having their own Gods and belief system. Thank God !
Anyway, that’s my little say.
All the very best for the future and looking forward to the next book.
Yours sincerley
D.E. Holt (London)
Subject: Science on the ropes
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2000 15:20:29 -0800
From: "Michael Sington" <michaelsington@manjushri.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com>
Graham,
I reside at a Buddhist Centre, where the teachings come from a school of Tibetan Buddhism originating
from Buddha himself c. 500BC and passed down from teacher to teacher in an unbroken lineage to our
present Lama who founded our tradition. A few years ago we were involved in a dispute with His Holiness
the Dalai Lama regarding the validity of a protective deity whom we, and many other Lamas worldwide
within the Tibetan schools regard as an emanated Buddha. The Dalai Lama as head of the Tibetan Govt. in
India is very much involved in the tangled and complex politics within that Govt. which mixes the spiritual
and the secular in much the same way as political leaders did in medieval times.
In the mid-90s, for various political reasons the Dalai Lama decided to ban the worship of this deity within
the Tibetan community. There was much Tibetan Govt.-inspired persecution and harassment in India as a
result of this, although of course not quite so savage and barbaric as in the medieval period. Nevertheless,
we over here saw this as a direct infringement of religious freedom. Because we brought this to the
attention of the media here in the West, various documentaries were made by the BBC and Channel 4
airing this dispute. A number of film production teams came to our Centre to conduct interviews with our
teacher and his interview was given the same manipulative editorial treatment in the resultant broadcast as
you seem to have experienced in the Horizon programme.
Your letter of complaint to the producers reminded me of the letter we wrote to our producers at the
time and in exactly the same tone. It is perhaps understandable that the BBC producers did this to us,
because although the editing techniques were extremely unethical, as they see it, the Dalai Lama is highly
respected worldwide and it is their duty to uphold the status quo. Nevertheless in your case one
wonders what the motivation of the BBC is in behaving like this. Is it to uphold the established scientific
orthodoxy at all costs? In which case scientific orthodoxy appears to be like the medieval church and your
good selves like Galileo and Giordano Bruno. Lets hope you don’t suffer the same fate as the latter!
This is a great irony of course, because orthodox science regards Galileo as a folk hero like Einstein, and
the Church then as an instrument of dogma and repression, exactly the same as established science now
seems to have become if you substitute repression for suppression.
This kind of activity, pursued by institutions like the BBC, seems to be going on throughout the scientific
archaeological community, in that acquired data is treated ‘selectively’. I can’t believe that this is solely due
to scientists blinded by their own narrow academic disciplines. Perhaps one has to ask whether the
powers-that-be are concerned that if the general public has factual knowledge of advanced civilisations
existing in prehistoric times, this would cause a crisis of confidence, or panic even, within our own
civilisation.
Or perhaps there is some more sinister reason… I leave that to the conspiracists!
Kind regards,
Michael Sington
Subject: BBC Horizon
Date: Thu, 06 Jan 2000 11:19:57 +0000
From: "STUART CHARLESWORTH" <STUARTC@cw-chamber.co.uk>
To: graham@grahamhancock.com
Graham
I have just visited your website after a long spell of being without a connection to the "net".
I would firstly just like to say have read all of your books and that of Robert’s inc his new one which I have just begun — Secret Chamber.
I want to take this opportunity to tell you that I think the work that the both of you do is absolutely fantastic and that I sincerely hope that you will continue to write awe-inspiring books and indeed produce programs of your work.
Which brings me on to my point in question, I — like I suspect many others — watched jaw gaped wide the BBC horizon programme, I could not believe the way in which they blatantly hid the other side of the argument.
However I’d like to mention after reading the letters on your website, you or Robert say that readers had thrown books in the bin after seeing the BBC programme, I find this a little bit annoying as they have obviously not read them properly as they would have all the evidence to counter the arguments of the programme. I remember one point in the programme when they were referring to the great pyramid I actually turned to my fiancee and said that the shaft in the King’s chamber points to the Belt of Orion. Was it mentioned in the programme NO!! Did I feel stupid.
I apologise for my rambling but like I say I am a great admirer of both yourself and Robert and felt I just had to lend my support.
Many thanks
Stuart
Subject: horizon
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2000 14:41:50 +0100
From: alastair jepps <ajepps@estec.esa.nl>
Organization: estec
To: horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com
Dear Graham,
I have read with interest comments on your web site regarding the
Horizon programme.
As many of your readers, I was appalled by the Horizon teams "cut n’
paste" approach to supposedly unbiased critical argument.
Will you (and Robert Bauval) be posting Horizon’s response to your
letter of complaint?
Cheers,
Alastair Jepps.
Subject: Greetings from Sunny Stockholm.
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 20:33:36 +0100
From: "Turner, Ben (CAP, EEF)" <Ben.Turner@gecapital.com>
To: "’graham@grahamhancock.com’"
Mr Hancock,
Having read both "Fingerprints" and "Keeper of Genesis", and met yourself and Mr Bauval at Waterstones in Bath in ’95 , your work seems thoroughly professional and well researched.
It was therefore with dismay, that I saw the BBC Horizon (episode 2) when I was in the UK in November, and the obvious attempt to belittle both your theories and character.
True your theories are unconventional , and academic critics can easily be found, but banter and defamation of character are two completely separate issues, and are on either side of a hugely wide black line. This black line was definitely breached by the BBC in the mentioned programme.
My question to you is this, are you able to seek compensation in the High Court for deliberate defamation of character, or deliberate misrepresentation ?
Look forward to your updates regarding this issue.
Keep up the good work,
Ben Turner.
Subject: Your beliefs & reality
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2000 17:05:57 -0800 (PST)
From: Gary Fogarty <reason_why@yahoo.com>
To: graham@grahamhancock.com
Dear Graham,
So many times I’ve given my video of the ‘Ancient Mariners’ to my friends. Unfortunately it seems that
people no longer seem to ask. Ask or question I hope that I understand what u are trying to do – or are
compelled to do.
I believe a lot of different things – religious and
not -bad and good- but no matter what there is always
something deeper I search for. I believe a lot of
people (if not everyone) but I also believe that a lot
of people will dismiss ‘out of hand’ what you show
because you touch the waters of the mind with your/our
search.
I don’t know how (yet) to explain to people that
there is a higher plain that we may/must think of. It’s
a very difficult thing to move a person from what they
believe to another. If I’m right you would feel the
same.
You already realise that what you do, questions
religion, on a scale that religious people can’t cope
with. My belief is that you raise questions that
super/precede all of this fanaticism and corner
backing. If nothing, if everything I would like to
thank you for the effort and I’m sure pain for the
road you have taken. I’m sure some of your friends
criticised (maybe not) but you are getting through to
people.
Please don’t give up.
If we stop asking why? we stop growing.
Maybe you have had many emails with support and many
with dismissal. You already would have expected as
much and that’s a great thing.
No matter what, I would like to say thanks for
speaking where I cannot and for raising questions
where I would be afraid to do so.
I am not a writer like you, I do not have the
platform for my beliefs and explanations, but when a
person like you comes along it raises my belief, not in
the religion we only know, but the understanding we
can know.
Slan leat – (Irish for Good bye)- I’m Irish!
Gary Fogarty.
Subject: Thanks
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 15:32:43 -0000
From: "Denis Hardie" <dhardie1@rjt.co.uk>
To: "Hancock, Graham" <graham@grahamhancock.com>
Dear Mr. Hancock,
Thank you for your snail mail reply to my letter and advising me that Secret Chamber had now been published. I immediately ordered it and added it to my collection of your and Mr. Bauval’s books. Please tell Robert Bauval that I can’t put it down. When I got into Part II I started to feel that the book really was a story about your and his contacts with the various authorities and ARE and other leading characters.
However when I strayed onto your website yesterday and discovered the depth of the furore over the Horizon broadcast last November, I realised that it was a tale that just had to be told in fairness to all those who read and admire your works. Please press on! The outcome of my visit to your site resulted in an e-mail sent today to Ms. Bettina Lerner, copy below.
What happened to the capping of the Great Pyramid due to take place on Millennium night? I haven’t read anything about it other than in Secret Chamber.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. I wish you luck in your work.
Sincerely,
Denis Hardie.
=================================
|
Dear Ms. Lerner I apologise for intruding into this debate at such a late stage, however I feel that I must add my weight to the enormous amount of criticism there has been over these two programs. At the time I was looking forward immensely to the broadcast covering the work of Graham Hancock in this field, as I had read all of his, and Robert Bauval’s, popular books covering the possibilities of antediluvian civilisations. My feeling at the time was one of astonishment at the many inaccuracies in your research and in some of the subsequent ridiculous comments presented in the programmes. My only reason for coming in at this late date is that I have only just acquired access to the internet and discovered the wealth of discourse on the subject. I won’t go into greater detail as much has already been said on the matter. Suffice it to say that my trust in the BBC to deal honestly and fairly with a subject has been dealt a fatal blow. One way to restore confidence in the integrity of Horizon and other like programmes would be to present a review of ‘Atlantis’ showing the current opinions of the participants in an even debate….. I believe Dr. Robert. Schoch already has opinions which differ considerably from those shown. Also as a leading archaeologist he could be asked for his opinion on the weathering of the Sphinx. Today, in the field of science particularly, an open mind should be paramount when so much is at stake… not the stifling of debate! Sincerely, |
Subject: Intellectual slaughter
Date: Sun, 9 Jan 2000 12:52:04 -0800
From: Stephan Venczel <srv@telus.net>
Organization: FULL-STOP.COM
To: "’graham@grahamhancock.com’" <graham@grahamhancock.com>
Dear Graham:
Now, having reviewed your site, and in particular the intellectual
slaughter of your work by the BBC, it does not surprise me to see an
instrument of the Globalists tear you apart. It should have been no
surprise whatsoever to you and your colleagues, even after all the
promises to the contrary.
What I would really like to see, is, your responses or comments about what
the Egyptian government, seemingly at the behest of the Globalists, is
hiding relative to the "other" record chambers discovered. While I suppose
that Edgar Cayce could be painted a kook, the fact of the matter is, I’ve
seen, on even something as profane as network TV, new images of new digging
under the Sphinx. Trouble is, the current Director there poo poos any
confirmation about anything new, records-wise, being discovered. Nothing,
as its claimed that, on the surface of it, would change or alter our view
of recorded history. How do YOU respond to their propaganda???
I understand that you do not promote anything you can’t 100% back up.
But even you must surely have some ideas about what they’re hiding. And
what is it that they’re so jealously guarding?? What is it that they’re
scared to release? New timelines, new historical data…technologies
described…what??? Also, Graham, what are your impressions about Egyptian
hieroglyphics found in and along the Grand Canyon, in the US? Now tell me
that that’s not highly suspect….
I would be curious to get your thoughts.
Stephan Venczel
Subject: comments on the horizon programmes
Date: Mon, 10 Jan 2000 06:46:40 EST
From: PETERSCURLY@aol.com
To: horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com
Dear Graham
I am writing to you in response to the two recent Horizon programmes.
I, and I am sure many others who have followed the ideas that you and
others have put forward regarding the lost civilisation theory, watched the
two Horizon programmes in disbelief.
This BBC flagship programme usually famed for it’s journalistic impartiality,
did what I can only describe as a " hatchet job " not only on yourself, R.
Bauval and J. A. West, but on the whole concept of the lost civilisation
theory. It was not only one sided but in my view totally mis-represented
the arguments put forward. It was in my view the revenge of the "mainstream"
scientific community, against people like yourself brave enough to question
theories that have been previously unchallenged.
I for one demand that the Horizon programme gives recourse to yourself and
others whose well reseached, and well thought out theories were rubbished by
these one-sided programmes by broacasting in a prime-time slot, your
response.
I will await that programme in eager anticipation, but won’t hold my breath.
Keep up the good work,
P. A. Stewart
Subject: Horizon
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2000 15:33:04 EST
From: JGr9362747@aol.com
To: horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com
Dear Sir
I feel that you should not be entirely surprised at the treatment
you have received from the above ‘science Programme.’ It has long been the
convention of science to ignore, ridicule and debunk very well put-together
theories and in some cases proofs, that do not fit with the ‘mundus nhil
pulcherrimum’ approach to life. Science is trying desperately to be a new
religion with all the trappings of medieval autonomy. Any interest in
fields out with this mechanical approach to life or any researcher who dares to
investigate the reason for the huge gaps in modern understanding is branded
a heretic and cast to the flames of ridicule. Horizon and programmes of that
ilk are there to endorse the dogma of scientific view and oppress, by the
above means, all lateral thinking. The reason being that there are many
scientists involved in the making of the programme, that cannot be seen to be
challenging the narrow line of thought from which they obtained their
blinkered knowledge. I feel that the area of research in which you (and your
colleagues) are involved shall, in time be its own reward.
Yours Sincerely
John Graham
Subject: Lost Civilisation
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 04:22:57 +0100
From: Jack Ruijs <jack@ramos.nl>
To: graham@grahamhancock.com
Dear Mr. Hancock,
I recently (today) discovered you have your own website, although I haven’t
read one of your books, I will download the complete site and read it! I’m
a great admirer of your (and others like Robert Bauval) theories. Although
I will not state that I agree with them (I do like to agree, but I have to
research it myself in order to do that), I very much agree with the
attitude towards the subject itself and the respect and will to understand
the real truth and old civilisations and not blindly following the
short-sighted dogmas of the bureaucratic scientific world. History shows
repeatedly that science mainly makes progress by people who go their own
way and not following science …
I also discovered the hectic around the Horizon programmes on your site. I
agree that the programmes were very much biased, however I saw more
documentaries with your ideas and I can guarantee that someone who respects
someone’s ideas, like yours, is not really influenced by a single biased
view of some program. Although I always admired the Horizon programmes (and
still do), they did wrong with you and Robert Bauval. I’m just a little
surprised that the thing that bothered me the most about the BBC episodes
was not really addressed in your complaints. It was almost a reason for me
to send a complaint to the BBC about it (without even knowing about all the
hectic). It was the part about the underwater structures near Japan. The
comment from Schoch that the structures are probably natural, is pure
nonsense and he cannot back up his statement in any way, not one single
argument can be given in favour of his statement. If he can show one, only
one single natural structure with straight edges in three dimensions, he
has only one single argument for his statement. He doesn’t even have that
single argument. His statement in the BBC program was to me something like
picking a random 8-year old from the street allowing to give a comment
about the structure and present it as the truth! But this is not even the
worst thing, because anyone with some sense can correctly value his
statement, the trickery part however is the cleverly editing of the
pictures shown. In the beginning the straight edges are somehow shown,
giving the illusion to be indeed artificial structures, but after the
statement of Schoch, only the unclear natural looking parts of the
structures are shown, giving the viewer the apparent ability to judge for
themselves. This can be a coincidence, but because of the general biased
view of the program, I think it is very deliberately done (I’m very
sensitive for manipulation). Showing a biased view by only showing one side
of the story is one thing, manipulating images to FORCE a view is a
complete other story! This fact alone triggered me to view the two Horizon
episodes with great care and discard the programmes as not being even
remotely scientific.
Currently your series "Quest for the lost Civilisation" is shown on
Discovery and for me you cannot make enough programmes like that. The
single fact that you place such importance on the geometry and the meaning
of the King’s Chamber of the Great Pyramid, makes me wonder, and is for me
a proof that someone REALLY is looking for the truth. Just keep on looking
… I will keep on admiring the ideas that make sense …
Just for your information (assuming you already addressed the questions):
– Why is there a large discrepancy between the accuracy of the Egyptian
buildings and the images on the buildings? People obsessed with accuracy
would make very accurate pictures, even in stone. Are straight lines of the
images really straight? (If not, why not?)
– Suppose the importance of the date 10500 BC is correct and that a global
disaster using the idea of Charles Hapgood is correlated with it. If the
shifting of the earth’s shell could be observed for a while, isn’t it then
very logical that the survivors of the disaster have a wish for measuring
this shifting and "freeze" the land with the stars on every continent
(knowing that such a shift means disaster!)?
Kind greetings,
Jack Ruijs
jack@ramos.nl
Subject: A Philosophical Analysis of Horizon’s Atlantis Reborn: A Close-Up of The Edit.
Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 04:11:37 -0000
From: "jameske" <jameske3001@clara.co.uk>
To: <graham@grahamhancock.com>
A Philosophical Analysis of Horizon’s Atlantis Reborn: A Close-Up of The
Edit.
By: James Kennedy BSc(Hons) Psychology, MA Philosophy.
Scientists clearly hate populist ideas and their promulgators. This is
because Hancock has become rich and influential as a result of it.
Scientists don’t often ever achieve that kind of wealth or influence
because the general public finds little fascination with details and little
or no media publicity ensues that would at least give scientists some
national or international public respect. This leaves scientists to
vigorously compete for both state funding and peer respect. Scientists hate
talk of aliens and extraterrestrials for much the same reason as above.
Horizon finished off its program with a dig at Hancock’s ‘The Mars
Mystery’. Hancock’s movement into the area of Cydonia has done him no
favours at all. The Mars Mystery is, in the most part, a money spinning
book that reasserts Hoagland’s theory without the intricacies and details
(see – The Monuments of Mars: A City on the Edge of Forever – for a highly
detailed scientific treatment of Cydonia by Richard Hoagland himself). This
link between the Bauval/Hancock Theory and the Hoagland Theory owes more to
the nature of counter-culture (and book publishing) than to any genuine
evidence-based linkage between Atlantis and Cydonia. There is very little
reason to suggest that ancient cultures have developed knowledge and
technology superior to ours. Hoagland’s theory rests largely on
extraterrestrial evidence for its confirmation whereas the Bauval/Hancock
hypothesis rests on terrestrial evidence for its confirmation. I was
present at the Leeds Conference, a number of years ago, in which Hoagland,
Bauval and Hancock made presentations of some of their evidence and I found
little reason to make any connection whatsoever except on the grounds of
mutual counter-cultural support. Scientifically speaking it is a long way
off in terms of evidence before a genuine linkage between the two theories
can produce a meta-theory of human history that is viable. However, treated
individually, their arguments and evidence were reasonable and supported
the conclusions they made. Hancock made his portion of the presentation in
a rather sensationalized manner but I forgave him that as he had a
background in journalism rather than science.
Horizon has always been a supporter of hard science, and its movements into
soft sciences like Archaeology and Anthropology have tended to be
unsuccessful because these subjects are inevitably a lot more intricate and
complex than the hard nosed Natural Sciences tend to be. I think this goes
some way towards explaining the shoddy treatment of the Bauval/Hancock set
of hypotheses that constitute their theory. However, it does not go all the
way. The editor of the program has clearly learned part of his trade by
studying Orson Welles. In ‘F for Fake’ Orson Welles showed the ability of
the camera in conjunction with the editing room to fool the eye. It was a
masterpiece of cinema and is well known as a classic in cinematic circles.
The same basic editing techniques used in ‘F for Fake’ were used on the
Horizon program. I must admit that I was fooled briefly and indeed "Atlantis
Reborn" can be considered a masterpiece of manipulation. Indeed, it is a
lesson that teaches us to take everything television produces with a pinch
of salt. In any case, I had taped the program and so I watched it again
later that night and noticed many glaring irregularities in the narrative.
Most of the evidence that Bauval/Hancock used as a foundation for their
theory was absent. Robert Schoch was attacked on his perspective on the
Sphinx (even though his name wasn’t officially mentioned) by ‘Geologists’
(none of whose names were officially mentioned). Then he was used as an
expert on Yonaguni. Horizon negated their own perspective by rejecting
Schoch as an expert on Geology with regards to the Sphinx whilst accepting
him as an expert on Geology with regards to Yonaguni. Indeed, Horizon made
a logical error on the Sphinx’s linkage to the constellation of Leo…..
"There are two far-flung monuments that Hancock claims were actually built
by the people of the lost civilization. One is the ancient city of Tiwanaku
in Bolivia, the other is the Egyptian Sphinx….The constellation Leo rose
above the horizon directly east of the Sphinx in 10,500BC, but there is no
evidence that this constellation was recognized by the Ancient
Egyptians…" Horizon, "Atlantis Reborn".
It should be noted that the lost civilization that is postulated to have
built the Sphinx at Giza is not the Ancient Egyptian civilization.
Therefore Horizon’s assertion that there is no evidence that the
constellation of Leo was recognized by the Ancient Egyptians is logically
fallacious with regards to the conclusion that they make. The Ancient
Egyptians are of no consequence in this matter (except that it is
postulated that they ‘defaced’ the monument by, somewhat ironically,
recarving its head). The hypothesis that the lost civilization built the
Sphinx was in actual fact unchallenged despite the appearance that it was.
Presumably Hancock believes that it was the lost civilization that
recognized the constellation of Leo. I therefore must conclude that this
part of Horizon’s argument is internally inconsistent in its logical method
and thus should be rendered null and void as evidence that contradicts the
overall Bauval/Hancock theory.
The metaphor of the Earth as a mirror of the heavens should be deemed
unfortunate in that it has given credence to Ed Krupp’s criticism of Giza
as a reflection of Orion’s Belt. It would have been better if the metaphor
had been the Earth as a representation, which carries none of the
implications of a mirror and its reflective properties and thus makes clear
the Bauval/Hancock assertion that Giza was designed to be an Earthly
correlate of Orion’s Belt. If one analyses the number of times Horizon
talks about ‘reflection’ and ‘mirror’ or their etymological correlates in
"Atlantis Reborn" then one can appreciate the flaw they have made. However,
Hancock is partly responsible for this as a result of the title of his book
– "Heaven’s Mirror", and the fact that he too often talks of the Earth as a
mirror reflection of the sky. Ed Krupp has thus done no more than take what
has been stated over and over again literally. This is certainly not a
crime nor is it pedantic. Language is the foundation of our ability to
communicate and it must be taken seriously. Hancock’s lack of the
scientific attitude is born out in the following quote…
"Ed Krupp’s argument that the pyramids are somehow upside down in relation
to the, to the patterns of the, of the stars in the sky to, to my mind is,
is a very pedantic and nit-picking and ungenerous attitude." Horizon,
"Atlantis Reborn".
And yet Science, if it is to be Science, must be literal and deal with what
is actually said in order to be consistent and honest. The Scientific
Method is neither generous nor ungenerous. Furthermore, the Scientific
Method must scrutinize the details if it is to be followed properly.
Hoagland’s perennial statement that, "The Devil is in the details" makes
reference to this. He refers to details as a necessity for building a
coherent hypothesis, and he is correct. It is in the details and nuances of
a complex of evidence that a theory is either confirmed or refuted.
However, no one piece of evidence can refute an Archaeological or
Anthropological theory because such theories are built up from an already
implicit complex of ideas regarding cultures. Thus, even if there were no
inconsistencies in Horizon’s presentation, the arguments that Horizon
presents should in no way render the Bauval/Hancock theory invalid. In the
Natural Sciences arguments of the style of Ed Krupp’s are commonplace and
tend to refute theories but once again it has to be said that Archaeology
and Anthropology are much more complex subjects in which one piece of
evidence has never falsified a theory. This is certainly true with regards
to Contemporary Egyptology that has a status quo with many inconsistencies
and yet this status quo remains accepted as ‘fact’. To put it plainly, the
Natural Sciences are centered on objectivity whereas the Human Sciences
such as Archaeology and Anthropology are culturally centered. This is not
to say that such Human Sciences ignore objective evidence, rather it is to
say that the Human Sciences place objective evidence in a cultural, and
hence anthropic, context. It is here that Ed Krupp’s argument becomes
unstuck (comes akrupper?). His argument has nothing to do with any culture
whatsoever, ancient or otherwise, unless one wishes to define his argument
as coming from a culture of Modern Natural Science. Krupp fails to see the
Pyramids as cultural objects with a cultural significance that is curious
to the people that designed and built them with culturally aesthetic
reasons and purposes in mind. The Pyramids are, to state a tautology of
sorts, monumental. Monuments must be considered contextually dependent on
the culture that produced them. The trouble gone to to produce them is a
testament to that culture. Since that is the case it follows that the
people that built the monuments wanted the monuments to symbolize something
important to them. They wanted to look upon them and see and experience the
Earth representing, not reflecting, the Sky above them, or so the
Bauval/Hancock hypothesis states. In any case, if one does not accept that
then one could assert that the builders had built the monuments the wrong
way round. This kind of thing actually happened with a rather wonderful
sandstone monument in Glasgow – The Kelvingrove Art Gallery and Museum.
With regards to ‘Leo in Manhattan’ Horizon has presented a red herring as
an argument. It ignores the significance of mapping certain stars and
building earthly correlates to them, as well as ignoring the same time-
frame of 10500 BC. Constellations are arbitrary when not considered
culturally BUT they are important in that they can be used as cultural
objects and provide a way for a man to easily remember a certain portion of
the sky because of the pattern that is induced by the cultural object – in
Psychology this kind of memory formation is called chunking. In any case,
the constellations map or ‘chunk’ the whole sky. They fill the heavens and
portion them. They make a clock face of the Heavens and they afford the
appreciation of time by cultures that had no mechanical clocks or digital
watches for measurement. Furthermore, the argument that Draco, the Dragon,
was not recognized by the people of Angkor fails to address the possibility
that what we call Draco and see as Draco was to the people of Angkor
something else. Consider the fact that in Modern American Culture they call
what Modern British Culture calls The Plough, The Big Dipper. They use the
same stars but connect them together in a slightly different way. But both
cultures recognize the constellation as something (a cultural object)
rather than nothing. All ancients cultures have some kind of veneration for
the snake or the serpent or some such creature as well as venerating the
sky in general. In the case of what is today called Draco I see no reason
as to why the people of Angkor should have seen it as a dragon, or even
have used exactly the same stars. However, Horizon did raise certain
questions as to the strength of Hancock’s hypothesis regarding Angkor. The
semblance of Angkor to Draco is not good. This cannot be accounted for by
saying that the stars in the sky have moved significantly in 12000 years.
Rather I would suggest looking for stars that do match the layout of Angkor
and regarding that as the snake constellation recognized by that specific
culture. I believe this is fair to do if and only if a few alterations in
the constellation’s configuration are necessary. As long as the same date
of 10500 BC can be obtained I think this method would be valid. It would be
valid on the grounds that no significant change in the constellation would
be necessary to obtain the same date, and on the basis that cultural
objects are pliable to a degree in that they are subject to influences from
other cultures and to socio-political changes from within the culture that
makes the constellation an object for recognition. However, there are other
problems with the Hancock hypothesis. The number of temples in the area are
a definite problem. Giza is clearly made to a definite plan and is
essentially from the same dynastic period and so can be taken as an
individual cultural object separate from the other pyramids in Egypt.
However, this is not true of Angkor. Hancock must make further arguments in
support of his hypothesis. To take Angkor and make it a terrestrial
correlate of a snake constellation requires at least a provisional attempt
to deal with some of the arguments made against it by Horizon. Furthermore,
he must make an effort to positively form a connection between the various
temples and monuments that he uses to make the terrestrial correlate. Are
there, for example, precessional numbers somehow inscribed on every
monument he uses as the terrestrial correlate? Are these precessional
numbers absent, or for the most part absent, in the monuments and temples
he does not use? If confirmed such a piece of evidence would negate
Horizon’s perspective. However, at the moment Horizon does have a very good
case against Hancock’s interpretation of Angkor and this case cannot be
regarded as some kind of debunking process or an obfuscation of the
evidence as it stands.
However, debunking cannot be ruled out with regards to Hancock’s appearance
on Horizon. His arguments were completely omitted from the first part –
"Atlantis Uncovered". While it was fair to present the orthodox viewpoint, it
was unfair that he was given no chance to rebut any statement made on
"Atlantis Uncovered" that contradicted or presented an alternative viewpoint
to the Bauval/Hancock theory whereas there were rebuttals of every aspect
of the Bauval/Hancock theory dealt with in the second part, "Atlantis
Reborn". This was outrageous, and in my opinion it contravened the BBC’s
social contract with the general public that finance it – a contract that
implicitly requires that it be objective and fair through and through.
However, to the viewer it was all too easy to believe that Hancock simply
had no answers. He looked like a liar caught out on camera. However, his
books, though containing more than their fair share of unsound arguments,
do show in-depth research and reveal a man of intelligence with a desire to
inform and a passion to enter into an open debate with the orthodoxy on the
history of Mankind. Horizon is not live TV. Thus, it does not offer the
viewer the opportunity to see what is going on at the time, in the proper
context and with all the information available. Pre-recorded TV renders the
viewer highly passive in regards to the availability of information, and
since this is the case the BBC have a special responsibility to be
objective and fair. I would guess that most of those watching Horizon that
were cognizant of the Bauval/Hancock theory were thinking that the end was
nigh for it. Nothing could have been further from the truth. I conclude
that Horizon was debunking in this regard. In view of this I would suggest
that Bauval and Hancock maintain some kind of editorial control over their
interactions with the media in the future. They have experienced firsthand
THE EDIT and its power. Significant damage has been done BUT this damage
can be repaired by suggesting a program to another TV Channel that competes
with the BBC. They can then set about repairing that damage and set about
attacking the integrity of Horizon as a voice of truth. Bauval and Hancock
must do this if they are to regain the interest of scientists. It is only
by their theory becoming the basis for scientific investigation by
respected scientists at universities around the world that they will
succeed. Bauval and Hancock should be saying what Richard Hoagland would
probably say – "It is up to us."
Subject: Reaction from BBC TO YOUR COMPLAINT?
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 13:57:50 +0100
From: "Ron Borkent" <rborkent@telekabel.nl>
To: <graham@grahamhancock.com>
I read your reaction to the Horizon program and your formal complaint to the BBC about the way you were treated. I was
wondering if you had any reaction from either the makers of the program or the BBC itself. I found no evidence of it on the
BBC site. Not even a mentioning of your complaint. This seems very inconsiderate to me. I have been a fan of the BBC serious
programs ever since the BBC could be received in The Netherlands, That’s where I live.
I haven’t made up my mind yet concerning your theories but I must say it is compelling stuff. I do not feel it matters whether you believe or not. A serious program is obliged to give a balanced report and it seems the BBC failed to deliver that this time. I
wish you good luck with your exploration and hope it will keep on giving me the mind teasers it has so far.
Ron Borkent
Arnhem The Netherlands
From: "Dallas Smith" <tex39@hotmail.com>
To: horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com
Subject: In your corner
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 01:51:39 PST
Dear Mr. Hancock,
I am a young American fresh out of college and all too aware of the abuses
and petty power struggles carried out by those supposedly reputable members
of our society known as academics. I recently became aware of the assault on
your archaeological/astronomical findings concerning the pyramids of Giza
(among other world sites) by certain members of this sometimes pernicious
class of society, as well as by the producers of the Horizon television
program, and I know their arguments to be indefensible, one-sided, and
inordinately biased against you.
I have since emailed the producers a letter via the Horizon website
expressing my dismay and offence at their patently inadequate journalism,
and after having read "The Orion Mystery," "Fingerprints of the Gods," and
"The Message of the Sphinx," I am fully confident that the profuse amount of
well-researched scientific data to be found in these books will prevail
against any puerile, partisan, and reactionary attacks against them.
I therefore wish you the best of success in your future research
endeavors, and fully believe that a mass readership of educated people will
provide an overwhelming tide of support for your theories that no band of
harried intellectuals, no matter how persistent, will be able to resist.
Sincerely,
Dallas A. Smith III
Anaheim, California
Subject: The BBC and Alan Alford
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2000 12:52:29 -0000
From: "Adam Short" <adam@orinocos-realm.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com>
I regret that I did not see the Horizon programme in question (quite how I do not know, I have been a keen follower of the search for historical truth which you espouse for many years now), however, I have seen the backlash it has caused, particularly on the internet. From your own documents in response to the BBC it is clear that a certain amount of "creative editing" if not outright bias has been introduced into the programme since you filmed it. This I find thoroughly reprehensible especially coming from the BBC who have always been fair in their treatment of any scientific discovery. One thing I felt I should bring to your attention however, is the self-righteous gloating of Alan Alford on his website in connection with the Horizon programme. As you are almost certainly aware, Mr. Alford is also a writer in your field. His theories and conjectures I find in the main to be sound. However, if you will pardon the expression, he is also an arrogant git!
I am currently in the process of writing a book attempting to set down, consider and reflect upon all angles of this field, in particular the works of yourself, Mr. Alford, Lawrence Gardner, Robert Bauval, Zecharia Sitchin, Erich Von Daniken and numerous others. To this end I have looked at the majority of sources which it was possible for me to obtain including the Enuma Elish, the Atra-Hasis, the Oronteus Finneaus map, the Dead Sea Scrolls etc. All in English translation unfortunately, but were they in the original I doubt they would be more illuminating, since the languages concerned are mostly dead and I would therefore be relying on whoever taught me to read the manuscripts anyway. To return to the point. I find Mr. Alford’s work, in relation to the original texts, to be far less scientific than your own and I look forward to the day when his own work comes under massive public scrutiny. If nothing else, if my own work ever gets published I fully intend to denounce most of his methods, rhetoric and general demeanour along with that of the BBC in connection with your own work.
I just thought you might be interested to know that there was somebody out there slinging mud at your back. If I were you I’d get a reply in quick before some of it sticks!
It is unfortunate that there appears to be such animosity between the people I perceive as the leaders in this field. My own work is likely to be a synthesis and exposition of both sets of ideas. I find it hard to believe that if I can spot common ground in your arguments, that Mr. Alford cannot.
Good luck with your future projects and don’t let the pseudo-intellectual bastards get you down!
Adam Short
PS – Any help finding reliable sources would be appreciated. I have amassed quite a collection but I am missing some valuable pieces.
Subject: Carbon Dating
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 23:05:49 -0000
From: "Nick Gillott" <nick@voodoo-penguin.demon.co.uk>
To: <horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com>
Graham,
With regard to Horizon – those two programmes have made me doubt what I
thought was a good, objective programme that followed scientific principals.
Although you make a perfectly valid point about the stone (something obvious
to most intelligent people watching) here’s something that also undermines
the organic argument as well.
Last year either Horizon or Equinox (I’m sorry I can’t remember which),
aired a program on bodies found in bogs and how Carbon dating is
extremely unreliable. They showcased an item where a body was dated to be
over a thousand years old when it turned out to be a murder victim from
about thirty years ago!
Good Luck & Regards
Nick
Subject: The truth always outs
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 21:00:20 EST
From: StarriNight@aol.com
To: horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com
Attn BBC Horizon:
It’s sad to see the scientific community find a pig’s tooth and build an entire primal human around it, and yet turn not only a blind eye to the overwhelming evidence right before it’s eyes, but also try to banish it from existence.
The very fact that you feel the need to rush headlong to dismember an individual [Graham Hancock] whom you don’t consider a polished academic, only reinforces the obvious fear you hold him in. The truth will always out: if he is on the wrong track it will become obvious in time; however if he is on the right track, nothing you can do will bring the truth to naught.
It amazes me that the oldest book in the world you ignore also. Jeremiah chapter 4 of the Bible clearly speaks of an ancient civilization that was destroyed, in fact Jeremiah may come before Genesis. In any case if you at the BBC cannot contribute to the search for our history, at least don’t embarrass yourselves further.
Best Wishes,
Mrs. M. Rodgers