BBC Horizon Scandal

Author of the Month

BBC Horizon: Atlantis Uncovered and Altantis Reborn, 28 October & 4 November 1999

Further Comments About Episode 2 (part 1)

Subject: Horizon Programme
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 12:25:53 -0000
From: julianleigh <julianleigh@breathemail.net>
To: "'graham@grahamhancock.com'" <graham@grahamhancock.com>

Dear Mr Hancock,

Having read your book Heaven's Mirror when it was published and thoroughly enjoyed it, my confidence in the possibility of your theories being correct was shattered by the Horizon effort to mock you. Thank you for publishing your response to the BBC so that I can see just how corrupt their treatment of the subject actually was. I hope you will be pressing for an early public response so that the viewers will not have forgotten the arguments when/if they decide to admit to the shoddy journalism they are guilty of.

Keep challenging the 'experts' they do not have a monopoly on theories and as in most scientific areas can rarely agree with each other!

Keep up the good and challenging work

Kind regards, Julian Leigh


Subject: Stunned and embarrassed .
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 02:27:38 -0000
From: "brett" <brettmcg@x-stream.co.uk>
To: <horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com>

Dear Graham,

I was very sad to watch the BBC stoop as low as it did to blatantly dismiss years of hard work by yourself and other very talented colleagues. I have just finished reading your Formal Complaint and must say excellent, I hope you get some justification from that. Very likely they will try to brush it under the carpet, but I do hope I'm wrong.

The editing was a complete farce, they left out so much it was almost funny. I was beginning to wonder if you had a serious head injury recently? They made you appear very fraudulent. Maybe Channel 4 could let you make a short programme to disclaim the Horizon Claims', and it would give us fans a chance to see your work in it proper representation once again.

All the best with the BBC, I hope you get a worthy apology.

Yours sincerely,

Brett McGiffen


Subject: Re: Horizon
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 1999 17:36:24 +0000
From: Simon Chandler <s.chandler@virgin.net>
To: graham@grahamhancock.com

Hi Graham,

Having read your letter of complaint I was appalled at the way the BBC went about making this programme. I do hope that you are able to voice your counter arguments with equal publicity.

Your refutation of Ed Krupp's argument made sense, although it took me a while to realise that when he said the alignment of the shafts in the Great Pyramid should have anchored the pyramids the other way up, he was wrong. However it did leave me wondering about the two pyramids marking the other stars in Orion (ie the feet & head... or is it head & feet!?). Do they actually match up? Perhaps you can't see them from Giza anyway so the builders didn't feel the need to map the other stars.

There were two other questions that the programme raised - how well does the 'salt erosion' it referred to account for the state of the Sphinx? Their treatment of this was very superficial.

And if the Cambodians had the skills to map the temples at Angkor to a high degree of accuracy, why didn't they? Is it likely that they weren't able to precisely measure the layout of Draco?

Overall I am now inclined to believe that your theory is valid, but I have to confess that I did doubt it when I first saw the programme. They really did do a good job at distorting the facts to discredit you!

Best regards,

Simon


Subject: Horizon again
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 20:30:04 -0000
From: "Sky Wickenden" <sky_wickenden@freezone.co.uk>
To: <graham@grahamhancock.com>

Its good to see you fighting back, I've been following your work since 1994 when I came across the 'Sign and the Seal'. I even traveled to Egypt to take a look for myself.

Its good to see that you have a strong argument to counter the upside down theory for Orion. They do however have a point when Horizon said that there are many temples at Angkor and the join the dots that Eleanor Mannikka produced did not look particularly close to the map of Draco. I do however realise that it is easy to misrepresent images by changes in scale and proportion. You need a strong argument to explain the inaccuracy (if there really is an inaccuracy) and explain why the temples you used to represent Draco were more important than the others. Throughout your books you have used size and accuracy to back up your arguments, it has to be consistent.

As for the underwater temples, I await more information, what's really needed to gain the impression of a human built structure is a video tour, the water does not allow for an overall view of the site, a video could solve this - you could put such a video on your website?

Something that I know works against you is linking your work to a spiritual search, now this may well be the case for you and many of your followers, and I in no way deny that search.

Many people have either found their 'spiritual' answers or simply are not looking. Just as the sixties is remembered for its free love and hippies, the seventies for punk and UFOs, the eighties for Thatcherism/Raganism and capitalism, the nineties will probably be remembered for its spiritualism' and mobile phones that play silly tunes. Linking your work to a spiritual search will alienate many who might otherwise listen, especially the academia of the world. I don't want to provoke a hostile feeling with this comment, it is merely an observation I have made of the world we live in.

I have focused here on the few constructive criticisms that I have and not the many praises and thanks for the information you have uncovered. Horizon did not even mention the Olmec heads, the shear impossibility of some megalithic buildings construction, the Sphinx was very briefly and seemingly inaccurately covered, Chinese pyramids, as for Ethiopia - I've heard little of it for ages, in particular those giant multi-storey pillars.

I personally don't need convincing that the official story is inaccurate, I'm not sure we can ever really know what happened, its more important for me to know that something out of the ordinary happened in the present days culture of being supreme and all conquering.

A possible suggestion - a re-run of Heavens Mirror on TV with a new introduction explaining your mis-representation. If promoted it would get the viewers.

I hope this information is useful and that the future is bright

Thankyou

Sky Wickenden


Subject: Horizon/G. Hancock
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 17:24:06 +0000
From: bbrown2@gm.dreamcast.com
To: horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com

Frankly I am very, very disapointed.

To see the BBC behave in such a childish and nit-picking way is disturbing viewing indeed.

It was hugely evident from the outset of the HORIZON broadcast that any alternative theories of evolution were going to receive a sound thrashing and woe-betide anyone standing in the programme maker's way.

To say that the BBC have acted unfairly would be a great understatement and the misrepresentation of Mr. Hancock was total.

I have always considered the British Broadcasting Corporation to be the purveyors of the best quality television programmes in the world but this display of one-sidedness deserves a very public apology immediately. An apology for mis-representation should be made before the next episode of Horizon and I beleive that another programme should be offered to Mr. Hancock to fully represent his views and answer the ill-constructed questions posed by the past programmes.

Yours regrettably,

Mr. B. Brown


Subject: No evidence
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 1999 10:57:16 PST
From: "Darren Sharrocks" <dsharrocks@hotmail.com>
To: horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com

Dear Mr Hancock

I watched the second installment of the Horizon programme. I missed the first installment, but I am familiar with orthodox views on pre-history and ancient history.

I know from my own experience that academics are closed minded to new ideas and find these alternative or revisonist theories a challenge that they cannot find an easy answer. They also distort history, choosing to select certain periods to concentrate on and ignore other relevant material. For example I did a course on Medieval world 400 AD- 1450 AD, they ignored Muslim Spain, which of course is part of European history. They stated the reason why they did this was because Spain was not Christian. However they did chose to study non - Christian cultures, like for example the Goths, the Huns and the Vandals who invaded Europe at time (also other European tribes that were moving from the Russian steps, like the Vikings etc)

While studing history at university most of my fellow students wanted to get their degree and not "rock the boat". Meaning they did not want to challenge ideas for the fear of losing a good degree or being kicked out of University, just try and deny the holocaust and u will see what I mean. This goes against the grain from what historical methodology is all about, in that any one can present an argument so long it is based on hard evidence, this is afraid not true. I know from my own experience it best to keep quiet or else. I have had other students come to me stating the same thing.

So this leads to one idea that modern history is no more than a talking shop for the elites who decide what is the past and what shall be taught regardless what the evidence. There is a fear factor that if one speaks out or goes against the grain of current historical thought, you are branded as a herieic and should be outcast to the realm of non history, junk,, nuts etc.

Now this leads me to the question of the programme. While I realise that the programme glossed over your theory and left out some key points in your argument, they did point out some inconsistencies in your theory and presented u in a light that showed u were annoyed in answering the questions put. Also u agreed that in your recent book that u ignored certain scientific evidence, that needed to be answered directly. This is bad, you just cannot do that, you have to answer these charges directly. If you do not then u lose credibility and hence your argument falls to pieces.

Furthermore u did not state in your book that the pyramids were only 38 degrees, u lead us too believe that they were 45 degrees hence giving the wrong impression. Also u did not answer the charge that the pyramids in Eygpt where only a near match if they were turn over on their head. meaning they had to be switched from south to north to make them fit ( think that is the way the programme presented it I will have to check)

For the sake of credibility could u answer the charges made in the second programme that there is no hard evidence to your theory and state the reason why u left out clear important evidence in your latest book. It also states that u have abandoned in the face of historical evidence that Antartica is the place where Atlantis was. The programmes stated that ice had been there for a least 400,000 years. How could u ignore this kind of evidence?

Also from what I saw of your message board is seems to be that only the posts that favour your views are on there..

Would be so kind as to answer these points I have raised.

Best wishes

Darren Sharrocks


Subject: Horizon
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 10:29:52 -0000
From: Dunn Jamie <ENGJDUNN@livjm.ac.uk>
To: "'horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com'" <horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com>

I was looking forward to the Horizon documentary about Atlantis for days when I heard it was to be shown. The first programme was mildly disappointing but I presumed the next programme would be better. How wrong I was. An entire programme which seemed to be devoted to rubbishing the work of hard working researchers, especially Graham Hancock. It is a shame that a subject that has so little television coverage anyway is put across in that fashion. The makers of the programme should feel embarrassed by the results of their work. I found it offensive and extremely biased.

A bit of an argument is good for researchers, it either makes them look into their subject more, or it strengthens their own opinions. To make a programme for an audience who may not be aware of the work of researchers such as Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval, then to portray them as 'cranks' is extremely unfair. I have read much of Hancock's work along with works of many other authors on related subjects and I fully support their fundamental argument of a lost civilisation. It is not possible for the vast majoitory of people, myself included, to visit the places that Hancock (and others) write about so it is thanks to them that people can form their own opinions about our past. I firmly believe that our history books are very very wrong and I urge researchers not to be put off by this programme.

I await a public apology to Mr. Hancock from the makers of the programme and the BBC.


Subject:
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 19:04:41 -0000
From: "Galaxy Cyber Café" <ladiesfirst@cisl.ie>
To: <horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com>

Dear Graham,

We suspect that you may feel aggrieved at the poor way in which your findings and methodology were misrepresented in the Horizon programme. Perhaps you should look on the situation in the light that the powers that be actually know that you may be too close to the truth for comfort. The reality of life is that something can only be a threat to its opposite, that truth is the opposite of untruth or the covering up of the truth.The truth exists as it is without any help or hinderance from anyone and is independent from any belief or ideology.

The powers that be do not want the public to know what has been laid down in the structures which were created in mankind's supposed primitive past as it might upset their exalted opinions and show them up for what they really are, men and women with closed minds.

If you are a logical man, and I suspect that this is the case you know in your mind that what you seek is out there, as there is nothing worth finding more than that which is hidden. If you will have looked at possibilities and examine them in the light of logic and reason then you have no need to apologise or even give heed to those who wish to supress or deny the truth.You are not presenting your findings as gospel or outside the bounds of being corrected in the light of new information, which is more than can be said of those who regard their own "expert" opinions as being beyond reproach.

The fact of the matter is that mankind is now at a time of great change and needs to avail of the knowledge which has been kept for his survival, if he should choose to do so. The alignment of seven major planets which has already begun and will peak in mid 2006 will a major crossing point in the future of mankind , if he should have one. The last such alignment ocurred approximately 10,500 years ago and ended the ice age.Perhaps it is time for mankind to awaken to the fact that he is not as godlike as he has been led to believe and that the force of the Earth on which he depends for his very existence but treats as a pawn in the gratification of his ego will be the arbiter of his fate.

Seek the Way and you will find the Truth.Seek the Truth and you will find the Way.Seek and you shall find.......

Regards pentacular@cisl.ie


From: Stuart Bolton <sb@stwig.u-net.com >
To: grahamhancock1@virgin.net
Date: 08 November 1999 14:22
Subject: Horizon Interview

Now that I'm in possession of what I regard as all the facts I believe that the BBC have been extremely unfair to you. They have been very quick to debunk your theory, I don't think that they have researched the theory fully.I ask you is it possible to discuss all the points raised in your book (quest for a lost civilisation) in two one hour programs, I think not.I have decided to return to reading your book and now that I do not have half researched theories floating around in my head everytime I turn the page I'm sure that I will continue to enjoy it. One more point I would like to raise is that about the English geologist who said that the pyramids on the Giza plateau were built in the positions that they are because of topographical and geological reasons, I ask you would a race of people capable of building structures so perfect in design relax perfection just because of unlevel ground, I'm sure that if they were supposed to have been built at true 45deg to each other they would have found a way to make this possible. Also I couldn't believe that they debunked the evidence of the weathering fissures on the body of the sphinx, this in my view is one of the more concrete pieces of evidence that you have put forward.

I will be travelling to Egypt on holiday again this year (I have been once before) and I will enjoy the pyramids and sphinx as much as I did the first time.

Yours sincerely
Stuart Bolton


Subject: Horizon
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 08:26:54 -0000
From: "Graham Brown" <graham@rabrown.freeserve.co.uk>
To: <horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com>

Hi there,

May I first of all congratulate you on a fantastic web site. What a great idea, as I have read nearly all of Grahams books. I hope you have publicised the site well, as I found it accidentally while doing a search on Graham's stuff. I was really disappointed with the Horizon show, instead of adopting an open minded attitude they seemed to be intent on discrediting Graham with sarcastic comments and linking him to "loony" notions about Atlantis, which he has always wisely avoided.

It looks as if he was set up. This may sound stupid but I suppose anything is possible. There seems to be a hidden world wide force that wants the order of things to be retained, i.e. religious beliefs e.t.c. and they will continually try and debunk or discredit any knowledge that suggests anything else.

Graham Hancock strikes me as an honest level headed Englishman, with considerable intelligence and above all Integrity, which this shoddy little programme has tried to tarnish by ridiculing Graham to a prospective audience of millions.

Graham Brown Glasgow.


Subject: Horizon
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:52:52 -0000
From: "Graham Naisbitt" <Graham.Naisbitt@concoat.co.uk>
To: <horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com>

Graham,

Nil Illegitimum Carborundum.

Look what man did to Christ! Stand by your views, I am right with you.

Regards,
Graham Naisbitt

Graham.Naisbitt@concoat.co.uk

WEB: http://www.concoat.co.uk


Subject: BBC recent programme
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 17:30:54 -0000
From: "Hine, David" <Hined@destia.com>
To: "'graham@grahamhancock.com'" <graham@grahamhancock.com>

I did not see the programs and can only gain a general impression from my Father and Aunt. Normally open-minded people where this is concerned but they both apparently took the program to heart. I have referred them to your letter to the BBC and I hope that addresses the balance somewhat.

I too am shocked at the BBC's apparent lack of integrity in this. However with the benefit of hindsight perhaps an independent would have answered better where fringe issues are concerned. The truth should be told and I really do sympathise with you and your colleagues and the frustration that you all must feel when faced with opposition like this.

We all have a story to tell and no-one wants this to remain a fringe issue forever but we are only a terribly small minority and the constant association with the more bizarre issues such as UFO's and Alien kidnapping does great damage to this cause.

I had the fortune to meet yourself and Robert at a seminar in London around '95-'96 and can say that in person, you were both utterly convincing and entertaining speakers. I have tried to see any TV associated with the subject and have often sat there fuming while your theories are attacked with such ferocity. It seems you have never really been able to state your case in full except in your books and lectures.

Perhaps we must just tell the story to those who really want to listen. There is irrefutable evidence for many of your theories. To my knowledge the water-erosion of the Sphinx is a clear example of this.

I am sure you know that there are many people who agree with many of your theories. Yes, we are a minority, but the majority is not always right. Your opponents should listen to many other wise voices. One said "I am the wisest man in the world. But only because I know how little I know.", I have no words quite this profound but would say only this to them. Every day is a school day.......

Keep up the great work.

yours faithfully

David Hine


Subject: Horizon's "debunking" of Graham Hancock
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 1999 10:11:41 -0800
From: "Jim Bensinger" <zagreus@hotbot.com>
Organization: HotBot Mail (http://mail.hotbot.com:80)
To: horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com

Mr. Hancock,

Below is a copy of a letter sent to Ms. Lerner in response to the outrageous way your theories were treated. I just wanted to add one more voice of support to your research. The fact that they are so scared by your research that they would resort to such tactics is only evidence that they lack valid ways to rebut your arguments.

One suggestion for your site. I recently purchased the video series of "Quest for The Lost Civilization" from the Discovery Channel. You may want to provide information on your site to others interested in purchasing this on video. The video is not advertised on Discovery's online store, but if you call the 800 number and ask for it by title you can purchase it.

Arlo "Jim" Bensinger

--------- Forwarded Message ---------

DATE: Sun, 07 Nov 1999 09:58:50
From: "Jim Bensinger" <zagreus@hotbot.com>
To: bettina.lerner@bbc.co.uk

Ms. Lerner,

Although not having seen the program (I live in the United States), I have read and reread the transcripts of your program on Mr. Hancock's website. I would like to add another "voice of complaint" to you and the BBC in general for the obvious vendetta with which you pursued Mr. Hancock.

I find it to be evident that Mr. Hancock's theories make (at the least) more sense than the academic 'status quo' simply by witnessing the wholly UN-academic way with which you set out to 'debunk' them. Should a theory truly be flawed, then would not rational discourse, and balanced reporting bring these flaws to the surface? Only a frightened academia, seeing what Robert Pirsig would refer to as a Copernican revolution, would seek to fund and air such an unbalanced, misrepresented and deliberately venomous attack on what may be history's grandest secret.

I would expect this. But for your organization to put such tripe under the guise of "fair and responsible" journalism only serves to hinder true scientific and rational discourse. Why not be upfront and just air the program under the title "Those Afraid of Hancock Seek to Discredit Him- No Rebuttals Given". Or would such honesty in journalism drive away those you seek to "convert" back to the academic status quo?

Mr. Hancock may indeed be wrong in some areas. He may also be right. Science, time and valid inquiry will bear witness to this. Remember how the Church responded to the notion that the earth is not the center of the universe? Do you not see your own reflection in the way you attack Mr. Hancock's theories?

This entire episode reflects horribly on the BBC, and I, although only one person, will no longer look at a program labeled "BBC" as being anything other than an extension of unbalanced reporting funded by one or another agencies seeking only to promote themselves by misrepresenting others.

Shame on you.

Arlo Bensinger
11/7/1999


Subject: OMENS
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 16:54:57 -0000
From: "John Howard" <crammere.pool@virgin.net>
To: <horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com>

I don't know about the "Horizon" programme, but you should visit the web site: http://freespace.virgin.net/crammere.pool/index.htm and here you will find compelling evidence ancient civilisations knew more about planetary cycles than people realise today.

John.


Subject: "Atlantis"
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 08:30:57 -0000
From: "Jonathan" <jonathan@iol.ie>
To: <horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com>

Graham,

I've just seen the second episode of the Horizon debunking attempt, I have also just read your letter of complaint. My reaction is why did Horizon bother, what was there reasoning? Surely it would have been easier to present a balanced programme. If it comes down to restricted air time then they could have pruned the rubbish (lets face it, most of it was rubbish) out of the first episode to give you more time.

Unfortunatly, I think the prejudices and agendas of the production team affected the editing of the episode and I think you are entirely justified in lodging a complaint.

I used to think Horizon was an excellent series, and many programmes were of direct interest to the "new archeology" but the last 2 episode are pure tabloid journalism masquerading as scientific objectivity. Horizon should be ashamed of themselves.

Oh! by the way....when are you coming to Dublin?

Good Luck

Jonathan


Subject: Hoizon Again
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:04:02 -0000
From: "Jonathan" <jonathan@iol.ie>
To: <horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com>

Graham,

I've just read that it cost 250,000 pounds to make the Horizon programmes, I'm staggered, maybe the BBC auditors might be interested in quality for money!!!

Secondly, how do you respond to the Flem-Aths criticisms and their research on the aging of the ice core

Rgds

Jonathan


Subject: The second Horizon programme
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 02:49:41 +0000
From: Julian Breen <jules@bigjules.demon.co.uk>
To: horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com

Dear Graham

I am pleased to see that you have lodged complaint with the BBC following the disgraceful "Atlantis Reborn" programme.

I suspected that your comments had been edited to suit the producers' wishes when you were seen to have no logical response to the various counter arguments made against you. Indeed, you were portrayed as nothing more than a bumbling charlatan who when confronted with "logical" explanations to your hypotheses was found to be at a loss.

Yet it is quite obvious to anyone who has followed your work exactly how painstaking and detailed your research actually is, so it was fairly evident that a lack of worthy retort from you cried out that you had been effectively set-up.

The BBC have been guilty of a serious work of "disinformation" here. To those members of the general public who have no real knowledge of your work, this programme may well have had the presumably desired effect of damaging your credibility, yet to those of us with a keener interest it merely adds fuel to the fire. Why you have been treated thus?

Have you really upset academia so much as to provoke such an extremely shoddy character assassination, or are you onto something which threatens to rock the boat simply way too much?

I only hope that you continue to rock said boat Graham, and maybe even one day capsize it. Its "anal-retentive bureaucrat" passengers are certainly in need of a good soaking!

Regards,
--
Julian Breen


Subject: Atlantis Reborn
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 11:59:17 -0000
From: "julianleigh" <julianleigh@breathemail.net>
To: <directorgeneral@bbc.co.uk>
CC: <graham@grahamhancock.com>

Dear Sir,

I have just sent the e-mail below to the editors of the recent Horizon programme. After I watched it I felt utterly sick to think that a purportedly reputable programme could be allowed to get away with such a biased hatchet job on Graham Hancock and his associates. Mr Hancock's own letter of complaint to your complaints department is far more eloquent than my own but as an investor in BBC programme making, by virtue of my licence fee, I expect much more for my money on a serious programme than selective editing of material to sway the argument against the 'defendant'. This matter has to be addressed urgently and Mr Hancock's letter of complaint broadcast soon, hopefully with explanations explaining why relevant interviews were omitted. This was certainly not a programme I could cite as an example of BBC balanced and objective programme making.

Yours faithfully,
Julian Leigh.

Copy of letter to Editors of Atlantis Reborn.

Dear Sirs,

I had eagerly awaited the broadcast of your Atlantis Reborn programme on the 4th of November. How disappointing it was to watch a biased programme which gave the audience the impression that Graham Hancock and his associates are nothing more than cranky dreamers. I have since read Mr Hancock's open letter of complaint and now firmly believe that you must have deliberately edited your programme to bias your presentation of the facts against Mr Hancock. How else can the exclusion of vital pertinent material be explained? Your reference to buildings in New York conveyed a nasty derision only equalled by the fatuousness of the analogy.

I do not believe that you lived up to the high reputation you claim in your 'from the editor' comments or from the objectivity required of BBC programmes when covering controversial topics like these. I would expect nothing less than an early broadcast of Mr Hancock's letter of complaint with answers from you, the editors. I trust they will be honest answers, as deep down you must know that you actually put out a programme which did not give the viewers enough of your material to make a balanced judgement.

I hope that any public response will not be delayed such that its effect will be minimal.

Yours faithfully,
Julian Leigh.


Subject: ATLANTIS UNCOVERED
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 12:58:38 -0000
From: "Lewis, Mike" <Mike.Lewis@UK.BritanniaAirways.com>
To: "'horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com'" <horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com>

Dear Sirs,

Horizon ( a supposedly factual Science programme ) chose to ignore the following hard facts, data and physical evidence that exists to support the Lost Civilization hypothesis:

  1. Ancient Maps such as the Piri Ries map. These show Antarctica before it had been discovered and in a pre-glaciated state. Why wasn't this item featured in the programme and NASA or the US Navy (both respected scientific organisations) asked to comment.
  2. Why weren't the 'star' shafts of the Cheops pyramid featured. They point to specific stars in 2500BC at the time when the pyramids were built.
  3. Why wasn't the ancient knowledge of the Dogon tribe in Mali concerning Sirius and its binary star system featured in the programme.
  4. Why wasn't Dr Robert Schoch allowed to give his evidence for the Sphinx predating 2,500BC.
  5. Why weren't the ancient sea going vessels of the Egyptians discovered at Giza and Abydos featured in the programme.

In conclusion, I would like to say that this programme was the most biased and negative piece of propaganda and debunking that I have ever watched.

Yours Sincerely,

Mike Lewis
BA (HONS) GEOGRAPHY


Subject: Very unfair
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 20:32:31 -0000
From: "Mark Bloodworth" <m.bloodworth@virgin.net>
To: <horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com>

Dear Graham

I have only just started reading your books and I find them absolutly fasinating. Not only are they very well researched, very well written but also very pausable.

I found the Horizon programme very unfair in the way it represented your work. It spent its time showing how inaccurate( in a very picky way) your work was, not actually how close you and Bauval really are to proving something really important. Having read Fingerprints of the Gods and Search for a Lost Civilization, I believe like many people I talk to you are really on to something of a staggering importance. Just because you work outside main stream archeology, it is unfair that your work is not recognized for its academic merit.

I have not read the website yet as this is my first vist and only thought to look after the horizon programme. Having seen the opening comment I felt I would offer my support.

Keep up the excellent work. There are plently of people like me who see great value in the work you are doing.

Mark Bloodworth


Subject: Horizon
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 23:40:19 -0000
From: "Norman Rodger" <xiy12@dial.pipex.com>
To: <graham@grahamhancock.com>
CC: "Robert Brooks" <xea83@dial.pipex.com>

Hello Graham,

I saw the programme, actually got quite angry due to the bias, and fully support your letter of complaint to the BBC. I've already sent off an e-mail of my own to complain. To be honest I don't necessarily agree with everything in your theory of the "Lost Civilisation", but I think you raise more than enough questions to make us think again about our pre-history.

For the BBC to be so biased doesn't actually surprise me, considering past Horizon examples (Von Daniken, Bermuda Triangle and UFOs all being dismissed as 100% "nonsense"). Yes, they do support the "conventional" scientific view, and they overstep the mark by deciding what is acceptable and what is not, when quite frankly no one really knows the answer.

As I stated in my complaint to the BBC, Horizon usually represents only one point of view (even in "conventional" scientific issues) and they never make this clear to the viewer, instead giving the impression of "we give you the definitive answer" which is quite wrong to imply.

Anyway, keep up the good work, and I hope the BBC responds to your complaint (I'll let you know if I get a response to mine!)

I mean, come on, do the Horizon team actually think salts in the Sphinx are responsible for clear water erosion, ignore Dr Schoch who supports the water erosion hypothesis and then misquote him to support their debunking of the artificiality of the Yonaguni Monument (which apparently he does not dismiss)?

Selective journalism indeed.

Best regards,

Norman


Subject: horizon
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 15:07:16 -0000
From: "ray tracey" <ray@cisl.ie>
To: <graham@grahamhancock.com>

GRAHAM

just a short note to let you know i was disgusted by the programme I watched on TV last week. I believe this programme was edited by a shower of narrow minded dipshits. Thankfully there are still some intelligent people around like yourself and Robert.Anyway I have read many of your books and am highly interested in your research.What do you think about "Gantenbrink's" door? .Keep up the good work..

Mooner


Subject: I've complained to the BBC
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 19:42:01 -0000
From: "Simon Adams" <sadams@europa.karoo.co.uk>
To: <horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com>

Graham,

I was appalled by the cynical Horizon episode shown on 4th November. How can these people get away with it? If this is the face of the establishment, you have my support and sympathy! I have been moved to email Horizon complaining about the poor show. For your record and support I include the text of it here:

I feel I must complain about the quality of argument used in the two programmes to supposedly 'debunk' the Lost Civilisation Theory supported by Graham Hancock and others. I have always enjoyed Horizon in the belief that the facts presented are true and balanced. In this particular case, having read works and seen other programmes on the subject, I could not believe what I was seeing.

You must surely understand that these theories that are well supported in fact have been widely publicised and anyone who takes interest in the subject will recognise that you have done a dis-service to yourselves by broadcasting such an obviously one sided, malicous and cynical attack on the work of Graham Hancock.

Although the theory may be controversial to the majority of academics, you should not have allowed yourself to be bullied into allowing them such a free reign and Graham such little scope for defense of his arguments. The BBC has been unfair, selective and biased - a direct opposite of the goals set out for 'high quality' documentary programs such as Horizon.

A similar backlash was experienced when Darwin's theory of evolution was seen by some to be heresy. If the BBC were around in those days making programmes, would you have jumped so fully on the side of 'established' academia and shouted 'Monkeys? Us?'

You would have, and you are.

Simon Adams


Subject: Horizon
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 11:04:45 +0000 (GMT Standard Time)
From: S.Clout@sussex.ac.uk (Simon Clout)
To: graham@grahamhancock.com

Dear Graham,

I am writing in support of yourself and Robert Bauval with respect to Horizon's so-called look at Atlantis/ancient civilisations. When I read that you were appearing on the show I was expecting an even-sided documentry on yours and others findings. What a saw was a cheap side-swipe at your discoveries, I do not expect this sort of third-rate journalism from what I thought was a respectable programme. I have read most of your books and I was dismayed at the lack of other evidence that Horizon had quite obviously overlooked. What about the sculptures at Angkor Wat depicting the Milky Way? What happened to your evidence relating to the star shafts in the Pyramids?

I, like my friends, are very interested in your work and we have had numerous discussions over the years relating to this. We are very open minded people (unlike the academics, it seems) and always look forward to your latest findings.

One part of the programme I found interesting was Horizon's example of modern-day building layouts in Manhatten with respect to the constellation of Leo. This made me think that, maybe, we all have a subconcious desire to plan things this way. Could we unknowingly be performing the tasks that our ancestors took for granted all those years ago?

I recently came across the following on the website and immediately thought of Yonaguni:

http://www.sightings.com/politics5/malta.htm

I have heard nothing more of this discovery, it seems like yet another important piece of the jigsaw has been pushed aside (again!),

Simon


Subject: BBC
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 04:39:55 PST
From: "Simone Tumolo" <simonetumolo@hotmail.com>
To: horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com

I am an Italian student at Southampton and I am very disappoint with BBC.I cannot believe it!

It is the first time that BBC is so BIAS!!!

They wanted the public think that Hancock is a freak!

They showed cases with evidence not supported!

What about the thesis of the geology community about the erosion of the Sphinx?

What about the theory of Einstain about Antartic continent?

What about the map of Piri Reis?

What about the construction of the pyramids?

Why they did not answered basic questions?

Honestly in Italy where usually national channels are bias in politics they are more fair with the subject of the lost civilization.

Does the BBC want to avoid critisizing the historic theories of the major academic institutions(Especially Cambridge)?


Subject: Horizon - Myth or Reality
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 14:45:03 -0000
From: "Smith, Gary" <Gary.Smith@thecallcentreservice.com>
To: "'horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com'" <horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com>

Dear Graham,

I have read the comments today from your web-site and it is refreshing to know that I am not alone in expressing anger and disappointment at the Horizon programs.

One particular orthodox historian view expressed is the misguided belief in the "ice-age". I have read Hapgoods book The Earth's Shifting Crust and I am convinced beyond doubt that the root of the ice-age is linked to the major tectonic shift of the lithosphere, and the resultant cataclysm of volcanic activity, flooding, and ecological trauma caused for example by an altered Gulf Stream. I have always had a problem with the ice-age hypothesis as it depends on some mysterious force that somehow the earth just got cold and then just got warmer. Scientifically and logically this is just impossible. What puzzles me further is this. Nowadays, it is fully accepted that plate tectonics act in a general East-West direction yet it is construed as being nutty to suggest the lithosphere also acts in a North-South direction also, or indeed in any erratic direction. Unfortunately, Hapgood's book is out of print; the copy I had was from a library. His later book The Path of the Pole is also out of print and the current price for a copy is in excess of £200.

If someone were to write a modern version on the subject that did not contain the usual nonsense about "Atlantis" and quasi-mystical fantasy then I'm sure that it would be of immense benefit to mankind, perhaps with the same impact as The Origin of the Species. Who knows?

As far as the BBC is concerned we should thank them a great deal. They have kicked an all-mighty hornet's nest by producing such a shoddy and biased programme. The result has been to accelerate the great debate that has been building over the last decade or so concerning the origins of civilisation and pre-history.

Perhaps this was their intention all along?

Yours
Gary F Smith


Subject: Horizon - Episode 2
Date: Mon, 8 Nov 1999 13:31:25 +0000
From: tcallow1@mmm.com
To: horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com

Dear Mr Hancock,

After watching the first Episode in the Horizon "Atlantis" documentaries, I must confess to eagerly looking forward to the second episode when it was announced that the majority of the second episode would be centred around your theories regarding a "lost civilisation" (also having previously watched your excellent series on Channel 4 some months ago which really opened my mind to your work!).

I have read your formal letter of complaint to the BBC which was posted on your website and can whole-heartedly say that I agree 100% with yours and Mr Bauval's views regarding your treatment / portrayal in this programme.

As you said it was at times "embarassing" and can only hope that the "general" viewer saw through the blatantly obvious "slant" of the programme to give your theories further consideration - even my wife who does not usually comment on such issues agreed with my on-the-spot summary of a "hatchet job" when the programme was being shown.

All I can say is that being one of the 5 million purchasers / readers of your books, I am able to see through this gross-misrepresentation knowing there was still further evidence which was not expressed, for example, the global deluge 12, 000 BC reported in (all?) ancient religions / civilisations, for reasons unknown?

It's a pity that the Horizon team could not have taken a leaf out of another "lost civilisation" documentary which was aired on the Discovery (+1 hour) Channel last night (Sunday 05/11/99, commencing 21:00hrs) - which allowed those concerned (unfortunately, you were not one of them), to air their views with "freedom" and simply present their evidence across to the viewer without the "nit-picking" which you were so often and obviously subjected to. Perhaps you should look towards getting another documentary commissioned on your own terms?

If I can be of any future help at all, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Kind regards,
Tony Callow


Subject: Horizontal Horrors
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 22:35:28 -0000
From: Tim <digi.tim@virginnet.co.uk>
To: "'horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com'" <horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com>

Dear Mr. Hancock,

Like many others, I watched both the recent documentaries on BBC2, and I too am at somewhat of a loss to understand how they could have made such an appalling mess of dealing with a subject as complex as this. The patronising tones, stereotypical music displayed the programme makers' rather crude attempts at propagandist broadcasting to what they obviously hoped would be a gullible audience.

It seems they had reckoned on their audience of either having done no research of their own, or presumably being unable to reach their own conclusions without the aid of a pompous and bigoted corporation telling them what they should think.

Fortunately, with the onset of media like the Net, the public today have far more access to a great deal of (usually) relevant information on almost any subject, and have no need to rely on the TV as a primary source of information. I recently watched a documentary on the History Channel on the subject of great Pharaohs. Toward the end of the show, the camera cut to the Sphinx, while the narrator solemnly informed us that 'the stony stare of the Sphinx gazed into the setting sun, just as the sun was setting on the Pharaohs themselves'. Nobody in the documentary offered an explanation as to how the Sphinx had managed to rotate itself 180 degrees about its axis, or for how long it intended remaining that way - it's obviously even more mysterious out there than we thought. In my opinion, topics such as these are not necessarily suitable for a documentary format. There isn't the time to include all the relevant information, and worse, no effective dialogue can take place between the opposing camps. I have therefore decided to ask the BBC to consider the possibility of a live, or at least unabridged, debate to be aired. This would allow both sides of the argument to face each other and discuss more of the relevant issues in real time, rather than have statements chopped and displaced at the whim of editors and producers. This is of course assuming that the BBC have some genuine interest in presenting facts for the benefit of their viewers, rather than wallow in the abject shame of their own incompetence and/or intellectual dishonesty.

It occurred to me that in many ways the two programmes were so bad they amounted to a tacit admission by the BBC that neither they nor anyone else have any serious argument against the majority of points raised by you, Robert Bauval or John Anthony West. For me, one of the most telling aspects of the docs was what they omitted to say, and who they omitted to interview. They rolled out Robert Schoch to denounce Yonaguni as being natural, but neglected to say anything about him agreeing with West about the early date proposed for the Sphinx - in fact, I believe they said that no geologist had supported this view. Does not this constitute a serious enough willful misrepresentation of the facts that the ITC should receive a complaint or two?

In the first programme we were treated to liberal helpings of hot air from a wild-eyed, arrogant dictator warning us of the dangers of being under the influence of wild eyed, arrogant dictators; Ken Feder, (teaching a class not exceeding about 5 in number - couldn't they find anyone else willing to sit there?) who claims not to have seen the programmes and expresses concern that what he said may have been taken out of context. I don't think so. Both he and the BBC said exactly what they thought in exactly the intended manner- presumably Mr. Feder will try and further exonerate himself by saying he was only obeying orders.

That's all for the time being, so good luck and keep plugging away.

Tim


Subject: Avebury Sphinx
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 14:02:18 -0000
From: "tradeadservices" <tradeadservices@netscapeonline.co.uk>
To: <graham@grahamhancock.com>

Graham,

I really felt for you on the Horizon programme, you know the rest.

How could the BBC do that? I have sent them an email to show my complaints.

I just cant understand why all the well paid ologists wont bend and put some real effort in what your trying to prove. I was totally disheartened after watching the 1st programme and I looked forward to watching a programme dedicated to your work, I didnt get it, I was left with a feeling of uselessness in this universe.

You know yourself, we are not so bright ,oh yes we have our computers and space rockets, but we aren't in touch anymore are we? The BBC took that lets say "spiritual" side out of life once again.

The thing that at one time linked us and the universe together.

I have a web page of my own and I've included some note of interest about the Avebury sphinx stone. I would presume you've heard about it, if you havn't or would just care to browse, please check out hammaskeep.demon.co.uk.

Best regards,,,,Ian Jackson


Subject: Horizon's twists
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 09:10:33 -0500
From: Sue Civil-Brown <wordshop@IntNet.net>
To: horizoncomments@grahamhancock.com

I can't say I'm surprised by the treatment that Mr. Hancock has received from the BBC in Horizon's programme. Unfortunately, this is the usual "blinders on" approach that conventional science in general takes.

Which is why I bailed myself out of archaeology nearly thirty years ago. There's no room for alternative viewpoints.

Mr. Hancock's response was excellent, but I fear it is simply another lonely voice crying in the wilderness of disbelief

Sue Civil-Brown
http://www.rachellee.com/

Site design by Amazing Internet Ltd, maintenance by Synchronicity. G+. Site privacy policy. Contact us.

Dedicated Servers and Cloud Servers by Gigenet. Invert Colour Scheme / Default