Author of the Month
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 11:36:34 -0000
From: Bettina Lerner-Private <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Apologies for the delay in replying to your email. I'm afraid I've been out of the office for several days.
As you have made a complaint to the Programme Complaints Unit, they will now investigate this case, and a response will be sent to you, by them, in due course.
Subject: Trusting the BBC
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 00:41:31 +0100
My father was a Professor of Government and specialised in Middle East history. His ideas were controversial and did not concord with prevailing opinion in the late fifties and early sixties. After once being interviewed, and then seeing his words edited and and twisted away from the meaning that he had intended, he told me that never again would he be interviewed on radio or television unless he had full editorial control. Throughout the rest of his life he stuck rigorously to that decision.
With best wishes and having read much but not all of your work , I recommend that you take a similar decision.
Subject: Horizon Politics
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 03:10:07 -0800
From: Joey Rowe <email@example.com>
It is obvious that you are a victim of infantile scholarly consensus attacks. Anyone who cannot possess an open mind (or who has the inability to possess one) is only trying to maintain his/her comfy theories that we decided not to hunt and gather anymore and suddenly began to build megalithic edifices and structures that remain unrivaled in perfection today. These individuals have to view themselves as superior to man in the past.
I know these things cannot be true because of the remaining evidence that can be seen even today. Man has become ignorant of his heritage through worldwide catastrophies, war and other devices that have either partially or completely removed ancient man's records from existence. And it looks as though the consensus wants to remain ignorant of it by attacking others (it is well known that 'experts' do not like others with fresh, new ideas to express them). In earlier years, open-minds brought us electricity and many other major enhancements to our lifestyles. Why is there such a major assault on new ideas now? Because these 'experts' are pitifully confined to orthodoxy and the politics within it.
I have read The Sign and the Seal, Fingerprints of the Gods, Message of the Sphinx, The Mars Mystery and Heaven's Mirror along with many other authors, Robert Bauval, Charles Hapgood, Dr. Robert Schoch, John White and any others I can get my hands on. I believe the Great Sphinx to be antediluvial. I do not believe Khufu built the Great Pyramid anymore than I believe that Chephren had his face carved on the Great Sphinx. You are not alone. I eagerly await your next publication because I feel as though you are on the right track with your views. If we ever correspond, there is an interesting, perhaps coincidental observation that I would like to share with you but, for the moment, this is the only way I know how to contact you.
In your corner,
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 14:24:49 -0000
From: "Mark Philbin" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
What a disgrace the Horizon programmes were. I was delighted to see you refute the programme makers claims in your letter of complaint. My only worry is that the damage to your reputation has been done. How many of the Horizon viewers will see the letter ? The producers should be forced to screen a 45 minute apology, before being sacked. Whether people agree with your views or not, we deserve and expect the BBC to produce documentaries which give an unbiased and fair representation of the facts from both sides.
Subject: Just do what you do best!
Date: Tue, 09 Nov 1999 13:55:39 CST
From: "Joe Rogerio" <email@example.com>
Mr. Hancock please don't be annoyed by these unbelievers. They have only the rest of their life to realize the truth. Continue your fight. God bless you and your studies.
Subject: FW: horizon 1+2
Date: Tue, 9 Nov 1999 23:04:44 -0000
From: "Ronny Adsetts" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Graham Hancock" <email@example.com>
From: cadfan [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: 09 November 1999 20:39
To: Ronny Adsetts
Subject: horizon 1+2
I don't think you need to worry about the "establishment", they talked about holes in your argument, while at the same time left gaping holes in their own. It seems to me that many scientists today - who are taught to think the establishment way - have lost the flair and imagination of their forfathers, such as Copernicus, Einstein (the librarian), Madame Curie, Newton, et al. Science is now a religion, with all the pitfalls of a religion. Scientists used to start on the premise of what thay had got, and worked out why it was so, down to discovering what an electron is or isn't. Sadly now, these establishment scientists start from a view point that "things" can't be, and try to prove "these things " can't be, rather than what is or maybe possible, like the Newtons or Rutherfords of this world used to do.
As for the Great Pyramid, if it was a tomb, as the orthodox view claims, then with all that effort of man-power, and workingman-years it took to build, is anybody seriously telling me, the Pharaoh wouldn't have adorned the inside of his "majestic statement - his pyramid" with pictures and hieroglyphs saying who he was and where he was going and how, as are found in the other tombs? This pyramid is devoid of all Egyptian literature of the time, to dissmiss it just as a tomb to me is just downright laziness on behalf of Egyptologists, never mind anything else. No one from today was there when it was built so no-one really knows. Maybe it WAS a structure to separate water into hydrogen and oxygen, as another theory says, maybe the covering of limestone was more than aesthetics to make it look good, as you came out the desert, maybe it was to reflect the heat of the Sun to keep the interior cool. No-one has openly discused all these possibilites really, perhaps if it was RESTORED to its former glory, maybe it would become clear defacto. Who knows.
Subject: Expansion of the universe
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 10:32:04 +0100
From: 3D Master <email@example.com>
A few nights ago I saw a show where they desperately tried to make your theory look ridiculous. One of the things they came up with is that not all the sites are exact, when it comes to the position of the stars, expecially in ?Cambodja?, Draco with the high tail: and here it comes, something the people and you probably forgot; Encycopedia Galactica was on a month ago and they showed how a constellation changed. They took steps of 10,000 years starting from now and there were serious changes to that particular constallation, so the other way around will work as well, have someone calculate the way the stars looked in 10,500 BC and perhaps, the similarities are even greater.
A second thing was Antartica, and here's is something wrong with their reasoning as well, I think: I don't exactly know how many and in which regions they took drills from the ice, which were all at least 400,000 years old, the thing I do know is that they could never have reached the bottom (5 km below) and here it is: the layer of ice were they drilled might be 400,000 years old, that doesn't mean that layer of ice was lying there 12,500 years ago. Ice moves and if Antartica was only partially covered 12,500 years ago and the Earth's crust shifted, not only were there massive Earthquakes, but also a reshaping of the crust there (the curvature on the poles are quite sharp compared to the rest of the Earth) and since the middle of the Earth would no longer be in the same relative position a restructuring of the gravitational fields and thus stresses: something that was low-ground before could be high-ground now and huge 400,000 year-old caps of ice, could have shifted to another position (uncovered perhaps) in (in geological terms) in an instant.
Subject: Horizon Programme
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:34:10 EST
The Horizon programmme was a very unpolished job of hatchet work. I know nothing about journalism or television programme production, but could still see it for the disjointed string of vitriol that it was. However, the real interest value for me was in the observation of a piece which covers a topic with which one has some familiarity ( ie. the works of Graham Hancock ), having read the books over the years. Most of the time we watch so called quality television documentaries with an implied assumption concerning their authenticity and accuracy, particularly if they hail from the BBC.
What a sobering lesson this has been - a timely reminder that we must not drop the guard of our own objectivity and integrity. This programme even set out to refute claims that your books don't make and emphasises the fact that most of the time we have no gauge to measure the probity of such documentaries. Most of us are probably aware that the daily press is guilty of such calumnies, but we tend to err on the side of naivety where the BBC is concerned....... no more though.
A G Brooks
Subject: Moral encouragement
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 19:47:09 -0800
From: Dennis Rose <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Organization: @Home Network
Dear Mr. Hancock,
In consideration of your busy schedule I shall attempt to remain brief.
I only recently acquired internet accessibility and thus have just learned of the "Horizon/BBC Incident". I am appalled and dissappointed. As you stated, the BBC are generally much more professional than this.
Please do not be too discouraged by these occasional encounters of bias. You are exploring areas of science that are jealousy guarded by an elite peerage. Their influence is wide and long established. Perhaps an unconscious conspiracy of co-operative discouragement.
It is obvious to laymen such as myself that any scholar who has invested years in supporting a cherished dogma will feel threatened by any "maverick" who is intellectually capable of seriously challenging their long established faith.
As you have discovered and mentioned in your books, many varied fields of science are necessary to pull together our elusive pre-history. Unfortunately it appears you must now draw upon psychology in order to effectively navigate the stubborn personalities who would torpedo your quest for knowledge.
Please know that I support your noble endeavours morally and finnancially by purchasing your books new. Please continue. Weather the critics, tolerate the fringe and keep to the facts and you can't go wrong. Cheers.
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 99 23:08:29 +0100
From: edfu.books <email@example.com>
To: "Graham Hanckock" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
CC: "Robert Bauval" <STARVLINGB@aol.com>
I must agree that the Horizon programme was a deliberate hatchet job, but of course there are always one or two individuals who want to suppress others for political motives rather than look at the quality of their research...
Subject: Disgraceful Horizon Programme
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 21:30:51 -0000
From: "G Comber" <email@example.com>
I would like to offer both yourself and Robert Bauval my heartfelt and steadfast support for the work you have been fearlessly pursuing these last few years, cocncerning the re-evaluation of the origins of Human civilisation.
Having enjoyed your channel 4, three part series, as well as the books; "Fingerprints of The Gods" and "Sign and The Seal," I, among many people nationally, have been disgusted by your unfair treatment at the hands of the BBC "Horizon" programme producers. The Establishment must be desperate to try this on and I believe you are closer to the truth than they would like the general public to realise. I do not agree with all of your conclusions but respect the validity of the core ones, concerning Egypt, Europe and Meso-America.
If the broadcasting powers-that-be, in the future, have the audacity to transmit this "Horizon" rubbish in America I would expect a similar reaction from our friends There: condemnation of the obvious editing, censorship, bias, stupidity and vested interests.
I understand the astronomical convention regarding the positioning of north as, up. Even if the observer at Giza faces the southern sky, views Orion and notes that the smallest belt star, identified by yourself with Menkare's pyramid, is higher in the sky and therefore north of Al Nitak, the Kufu pyramid. However, this inverted perception is only a convention and does not make real sense if one compares the visual display in the southern sky with the physically arranged pyramids on the ground, observed in front of a northerly positioned viewer looking south. As above, so below! No doubt about it and only our modern "experts" could sink into such illusion. I would advise anyone to travel to the plateau and see for him or herself, if in confusion about this. What you see on the ground matches the sky in 10,500 B.C. Osiris continues his precessional movement to maximum elevation in the southern sky, moving up or north, using the current astronomical convention. But one must look SOUTH to see this spectacle. Same direction as the ground plan layout of the pyramids with Kufu at the most northerly point. Yep! No doubts there Mr Hawas!
The King's chamber star shaft points to Orion's belt as positioned in 2500 B.C. looking south. It has been measured scientifically. Why can't the orthodox loons see it? I believe they only see what they want to and that is not the scientific approach they arrogantly wrap themselves in. Obviously the ancients had no such constraints on their abilities to see what was in front of their very eyes. Poor Edwin Krupp, he has placed himself in a "scientific" straightjacket and now suffers tunnel vision as a result, or is it vertigo, or maybe diarrhea?
Also, nice to read Robert?s letter to Chris Hale explaining his pyramid/belt angles being more accurate than those Horizon part 2, portrayed. 38 & 50 degrees, being two erroneous angles. Logically you have to pass a diagonal line through the two biggest stars or pyramids, as the third is offset. Robert has got them on thin ice and they must fear him.
I have been to Egypt myself and observed the obvious rainwater weathering on the limestone body of the Sphinx and enclosure. You don't even have to be a geologist to see that, it's plainly and dramatically suggested by those linear fissures. Salt crystals? Bah!! Let us apply some common sense please, Egyptologists!! "Horizon" offered no evidence and where was Robert Schoch to counter the salt deposits claim? Was he edited also or simply uninvited to make a constructive comment?
I also feel a little sorry for the overweight and angry little American chap who thought that those of us who truly seek answers to gaping holes in the conventional paradigm, must be forerunners of a Nazi revival. What utter baloney and maybe he ought not to display such hysteria in public, as uninformed viewers may actually start to believe him, God forbid. Shame on the BBC for it's disgraceful airing of this nonsense and shame on the Horizon programme for editing out both yours and Robert's counter arguments to the orthodox confusion, frenzy and bullying.
Well, thanks for reading my ranting. Truth is with you and I wish you all the best in the future. Keep thinking, intuiting, questing, writing and speaking for this worthy cause.
Julian R. Comber
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 02:34:38 GMT
From: "GAVIN GOODHART" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Having watched the second programme Atlantis Reborn I was somewhat dismayed to see what appeared to be you firmly on the backfoot claiming nit-picking in your defence. Luckily for me, but unfortunate for most of the country who pay their license fees in good faith, I had had your prior warning of what was about to come.
In certain other countries I am sure lawsuits would follow such blatant abuse of broadcasting power. The medium of television in this instance more than blatantly shows its destructive capabilities.
The comments of Dr Schoch were not balanced by any other geologists despite the fact that Professor Kimura has been working at the Yonaguni ruins for a number of years and has credentials to match those of the learned Dr Schoch.
I had the fortune to meet and film an interview with Professor Kimura this August and he told me that Dr Schoch was currently reconsidering his views after having dived a few more times at the site. Find a similar site anywhere else in the water that is 'without doubt' naturally occurring and people would be queuing up for years to dive there. Having dived around the world I have never come across anything like Yonaguni, and your advice to Dr Schoch to do some more diving is quite right. I did not hear any mention from him of just how hard the conditions are there, especially for a somewhat novice diver, as I am sure you will agree having stated that you nearly lost your life there diving. For a diver to truly be able to examine things underwater he first needs to be a really competent diver and I have it on very good authority that when Dr Schoch first formed his views about the site they were after very short dives where he was more concerned for his welfare than examining ruins scientifically.
I thought the underwater views of the site shown on the programme were absolutely awful and I would happily provide my own footage if they ever were forced into reediting the programme in order to clear a name that has been somewhat blighted.
Subject: Re: Horizon
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 17:48:04 -0000
From: "Gray Levett" <email@example.com>
Dear Graham & Robert,
In another age you would have challenged your detractors to a duel. Those days have passed. However, may I suggest that you challenge them on a "live" debate on the issues they have raised. I will be interested to hear if they are willing to face you. It is the very least that they and the BBC owe you.
I wish you both continuing success with your future projects.
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1999 00:21:53 -0000
From: "H" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Dear Mr. Hancock,
I watched both programmes from a point of view of both interest in the subject and also a scientific perspective. I, together with my Father (a Zoologist) were staggered by the farcical nature of the evidence presented. It is only because of my interest in the subject that I could see the one sidedness of the views presented and the, frankly, deliberate factual omissions by the Horizon team. Whilst there is always room for debate in a new theory, Horizon left the impression that this subject was done and dusted. I find it hard to know where to begin as far as picking holes in the programme goes. The argument that underground rectangular tombs are a clear and obvious precursor to pyramid building stretches belief. They in no way resemble each other in layout, design, architecture, engineering or, in the case of the three Great Pyramids, usage. Not once was the absence of bodies, grave goods or inscriptions dealt with with regard to the Giza plateau. How on Earth the pyramid builders were supposed to progress instantly from the rather poor Red and Bent pyramids to the spectacular Giza pyramids, as suggested at one point is beyond me. Also, one of the arguments seemed to depend on there only being entrances on the North sides of these buildings. If memory serves me correctly Strabo noted Southern entrances on all three pyramids. I could be wrong, but I don't think I am.
I would also take very serious issue with the argument that hunter gatherers settled down to agriculture because of drought. I almost choked. Hunter gathering societies don't settle down, that's why they are hunter gatherers. If resources are short, they move.
Something clearly missed by the two professors is that the first thing to suffer in a drought is agriculture. It's fairly simple, rains stop, farmers starve. They don't go on a sowing spree. To present a thin wild seed and a fat cultivated seed and claim them to be only years apart is not only ridiculous (cultivated seeds would take hundreds of years of selective breeding, if indeed these hunter gatherers practised that idea) it is also impossible to verify by any dating technique that I have ever come across.
This, as I'm sure you know, is only a fraction of the idiocy presented by the programme, but there was one moment in the first episode I found most disturbing. Towards the end it was subtly but surely indicated that to believe anything but orthodoxy was the route to Nazism. Why? Because Hitler believed in 'something else' also. On this basis we are supposed to dump all investigation? Hitler also believed in Darwin's theory of Evolution, are we to dump this as well? Prehaps I am too cynical but this struck as insidious propaganda with a byline of 'If we can't convince you on the argument, we'll scare you with the Fascists.' I am not a scientist but my Father is and I have always taken a great interest in the subject. My Father, whilst not agreeing wholeheartedly with your ideas was none the less also staggered at the absurdity of this programme. It was not an investigation, it was scare tactics as far as I can see. I have written to complain, but I have a feeling the letter will somehow be lost in the post.
Subject: Graham Hancock
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 20:43:04 -0000
From: "Jacqueline Munday" <email@example.com>
Dear Ms Lerner,
I was horrified and disgusted at your treatment of Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval's theories regarding a lost civilisation.
Having stated at the end of the first programme that the second would be to do with Graham's work, you and the production team have behaved like schoolroom bullies. You cut Graham's scenes to make him look like an idiot and gave at least four other 'experts' plenty of time to pull his theories apart.
You did not screen Graham's explanation of why he does not worry about carbon-dating, i.e. you can not carbon-date stone, you can only carbon-date the organic substances around it! You made it look as though Graham had just ignored this point when I know this was not the case.
Most of all, Graham and Robert were promised an equal and balanced representation of their work. This is clearly not the case.
The very cheap point about the Manhattan 'constellation' was complete rubbish. Manhattan is built on a grid, so evidently you could draw pretty much anything you like on it and find buildings to match.
I know it is not only I who believe Graham deserves the right to reply for this ridiculous portrayal of his work.
Subject: The BBC! =Big Brother Corporation?
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 03:25:09 PST
From: "Jonas Sandstrvm" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Hi Graham & Co!
Salutations from Sweden!
I think the way that BBC Horizon presented the two programs were neither a benefit for orthodox nor the unorthodox. It was plainly just bad selective journalism, closing the most analytical of minds (be it an academic or other).
The way they portrayed the established scholars as grumpy individuals and claiming you and the rest as frauds, benefited none of the two opposing sides when there was NO middle ground to stand on...
I've only recently read "Fingerprints Of The Gods". I bought it after I saw a program (which contained theories brought forth by you) that aired with the Discovery Channel. And I was completely inspired to read more about ancient history etc... When in school one learns that history is already known (or set) and uncovered. Which does not inspire one to look even further behind the veils of antiquity. After contemplating on some of the elements of questionable theories, it inspires a person to know more about the sciences and theories involved. I do not fully support your theories, but I do think a lot of them should be analyzed further......
I believe there is more to the history of civilization then the established facts!
Keep on going Graham & co!
Jonas "Theocrat" Sandstrvm
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:11:03 -0000
From: "Marc Palmer" <email@example.com>
I saw both Horizon programs, and have read "Heaven's Mirror" after watching that series on Channel 4. I find your theories interesting and a lot of what you postulate makes sense to me. However I watched the Horizon programs with my "Hancock sceptic" head on to try to give the counter-arguments a balanced viewing (somewhat ironic don't you think!).
At points in the programs I definitely thought that they "got you" and that your theories were losing credence in my mind. Coupled with the way they edited your interview, you came across badly at times.
However, having read your letters of complaint and those of Mr.Bauval, as well as many of the comments from other viewers, I have to say that I think the BBC behaved very badly.
Intelligent persons such the majority of the BBC's viewers can form their own opinions when provided with evidence on both sides of an argument. Unfortunately I found that the Horizon programmes left me with the feeling that you are definitely wrong, though I definitely DO NOT feel that way now having read the FACTS about the carbon dating and the Giza/Orion orientation that the program failed to provide.
This said, I do agree that there were some interesting points raised in the programs:
I also happen to think that it was extremely patronising of the BBC to make the final jibe about the USA city mirroring Leo. Extremely childish indeed, and as you have already pointed out, ignoring salient facts such as N/S alignment and worst of all - they gave the impression that it was "equal" to your theories, when they did not give an indication of when (if ever) Leo rises over the "constructions".
...it might be fruitful to compile a list of omissions and factual misrepresentations in the programs. Giza pyramids as tombs?! No concessions such as "there are no known references to the Sphinx in ancient Egyptian texts"? It's almost criminal.
I just want the truth... and I think it's somewhere between the orthodox and the (currently) unorthodox.
Subject: KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 00:21:24 -0100
From: Margaret King <firstname.lastname@example.org>
You may have many critics but you also have an enormous amount of people who are following your work and are behind you all the way.
It was after reading 'Fingerprints of the Gods' and 'Keeper of Genesis' that I felt compelled to go to Egypt to see it for myself - and I was hooked! The second time I went, was on one of John Anthony West's tours and it changed my life. There is no way that anyone really 'seeing' Egypt that way can ever believe again in the 'establishment' version of its history. I feel that humanity is at a turning point and the reason that so many of you 'alternative' Egyptologists and researchers are finding such a following, is that mankind is beginning to 'feel' the energies from the past - and we are changing.
All over the world ancient structures are coming to light after many years of being hidden. Were we not ready before to understand them? Why now?
I live in Tenerife, a place that most people connect with sun, booze and sex but we too have our history of ancient peoples and sacred monuments. Several years ago Thor Heyerdahl came here to check out what was generally thought to be a 'pile of old rocks left lying about by the local farmers' He immediately recognized it as a stone pyramid. After obtaining the help of an old friend, Fred Olsen (of the shipping line) the land was purchased and the pyramids were restored to their former glory. We now have an ethnographic park containing the pyramids, a museum on the local culture and an explanation on how the original inhabitants (the Guanches) arrived - possibly from North Africa - by sea, using the currents. There are five pyramids and the main one is aligned to the summer solstice and has a ceremonial terrace behind it. The museum has displays of old pottery found in the Canaries and also identical pieces that have been found in Central America. What a coincidence!!! It now appears that similar pyramids have been discovered on the neighbouring island of La Palma.
Of course Tenerife also considers itself a candidate for Atlantis. They say that when the land sank, the only piece left sticking out of the water was Mount Teide and the surrounding land. Mount Teide is the highest peak in all Spanish territory (3,762m)
There is also a very strong energy here - the same sort that I experienced in Egypt. Many people find themselves affected by this energy and cannot leave the island. I have been here nearly 17 years and still feel 'the pull'.
I am sure that there are hundreds of ancient structures, similar to our pyramids, all around the world and it would be very interesting if someone like yourself wrote a book on these. They may not compare to The Great Pyramid or the Sphinx but in their own way they show that the ancients were not ignorant cave-men but intelligent peoples searching for an answer.
Good luck with your quest.
Subject: stars and 'fit' and Horizon programmes
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 21:22:00 -0000
From: "Marjorie Rigby" <email@example.com>
It occurs to me that when the 'fit' of certain constellations is criticised as too imprecise, I do not recall anyone overlaying a stellar map of the exact epoch in question but a recent one....I remember reading somewhere that the constellations themselves change shape over the millennia. No-one on the programmes has so far said this or made it truly clear. If the temples commemorate a time many thousands of years before.....In other words, I am hopeful that my remark may be helpful and support your position, if it is not teaching one's grand(father) to suck eggs!
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 1999 16:54:04 -0000
From: Nur Puri Purini <K975113@Kingston.ac.uk>
Organization: Kingston University
I am one of your strongest supporters and after the BBC programme even more.....The huge amount of work they have done to discredit your's and Robert's outstanding work proves that you guys are slowly hitting the target... The task that you and a new generation of historians face is enormous...To change history is one of the most difficult missions a man could face in a life time.
My suggestion is to keep rolling and subverting the system! Please Graham do not give up, you represent a new hope in the academic world and are ,as a matter of fact, an inspiration to all of us young archeologists.
I believe in what you and Robert say because since my childhood my father was inspired in his architectural works by the stellar alignments of the Pyramids, the culture of enlightenment and Atlantis. I have been the witness of the magic of Angkor, Giza Tiahuanaco this summer and felt like you while visiting the gateways to the stars.It is part of our archetype and mental continuity ( definition of soul by the Buddhists), when we go there we feel like we've been there before...
A crapy ,although influential, TV programme will not affect the credibility you have acquired in years of research.
The crypted code used by antediluvian civilization needs not only a cold scientific understanding...Indeed, most mysteries require a deep knowledge of concepts such as reincarnation, hyperdimensional physics , astronomy etc.etc.. People around the world are not ready to abort old beliefs yet but the process of change has started and will continue..
As you and few other people know we are living in the age of the Khali Yuga. Graham, I am with you like millions of other people.. Just keep diving around the oceans, other megalithic temples will arise( Malta ,Bimini etc, etc) as Atlantis will when the time comes.
Nur Puri Purini
Subject: BBC Horizon Program
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 16:44:16 +0100
From: "Peter de Groot" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Let it be a consolation to you that television has always been and shall always be a medium which is controlled by those that want to keep people ignorant and dependant.
The BBC emission has shown again very clearly that television producers can manipulate the minds and obscure the opinion of millions of people.
Your theory about our ancestors and future on this planet is perhaps not always correct in all its details ; however in broad lines , I do believe that you are right on many issues.
It might perhaps help with your further research to know that there is another source of information which is accessible to all people that are really interested in our past and future.
The source of this information is called the Akasha Chronicles ; it is a kind of planetary memory and many so called esoteric people like Rudolf Steiner for example have written about it.
The original text dates from 1904 and was published in German in 1939. I am sure there are English translations of the German text. Its worth reading ( if you haven't already done so ) and you will find much of your own research confirmed.
Keep on going and don't bother about TV producers !
Peter de Groot
Subject: HORIZON AND ROBERT SCHOCH
Date: Thu, 11 Nov 1999 11:40:36 -0000
From: "sheena wright" <email@example.com>
Recently, I listened to a long radio interview with Robert Schoch on the Art Bell show talking about how he has recently changed his mind about the structures at Yonaguni. The clip used on Horizon was quite old and it does seem very dishonest of the BBC to use this instead of interviewing him on his current opinions. You can listen to this interview if you haven't already on http//www.teamatlantis.com
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 08:33:05 PST
From: "Konstantin Artz" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
When I saw that programme, I already felt, there was something fishy about it. The short answers from you regarding for example, the carbon-dating question, didn't correspond to your style of explaining things in your books. When I read your complaint to the BBC, I understood, how that came.
It's very clear, one has to be extremely cautious in giving answers to interviewers. You actually have to form every sentence in a way, it can't be cut into pieces.
I was furthermore quite astonished about Robert Schoch's statement, the Yonaguni monument is clearly not man-made! As far as I know, he always maintained, he wasn't sure and it could be either way.
Keep going the right way!
Konstantin Artz, Netherlands
Subject: Atlantis Reborn
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 15:19:48 -0000
From: "Sara Miller" <email@example.com>
I first heard about you on your television series on Channel 4, Quest for the Lost Civilisation and I must say that I was fascinated by your discoveries. Immediately afterwards, I made sure that the video player had recorded it all, and then sent the tape to at least two of my friends, waiting to see what their impression was. A year later, I am still a firm believer in the lost civilisation and only now do I decide to buy your book, Heaven's Mirror. (Actually it's going to be a birthday present from my family).
I have also watched Horizon before, and when the television listings read that it was to be on the theories of Atlantis, my heart leapt as the long lost memories of your program entered my mind. I stuck about ten Post-It notes about my room and in my filofax to remember to watch it... and missed episode one completely. However, I did remember to watch episode two, (another twenty notes later,) and was left completely speechless. Your theories were ultimately left out, with no explanations to any of your answers. At first, my mind began to wonder whether or not I should believe your ideas anymore, after all the BBC and those other astronomers had done a good job of proving you wrong. And surely, the Horizon team wouldn't take sides, they wouldn't dismiss your explanations on purpose, not the BBC. Or so I thought.
Having read your letter of complaint to the Horizon team, I am faithfully back on your side. I couldn't believe how biased they were about it. It seemed that at first, the BBC were just telling the story and letting you, Robert Bauval and the opposition report your sides of it. But then they actually went out of their way to prove your theory about the temples of Cambolia wrong. (The stupid map and the dot-to-dot project... I bet they had a lot of fun doing that). They took sides, basically.
I have now issued a personal complaint to the BBC, who I don't reckon know what they're talking about whatsoever.
I wish to say that I am to follow you in your quest and give you all my support in any future (or present) expeditions. May the BBC learn from their mistakes and I hope that you get a reply to your (and Robert Bauval's) complaints.
Subject: [Fwd: Atlantis Part 2]
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 1999 13:51:30 +0000
From: Simon Chandler <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: Graham Hancock <email@example.com>
I have been meaning to write to the BBC about horizon all week. Now I have finally done it! If I were you I'd leave all the fishy business to the BBC and check out more of those underwater ruins!
Subject: re: Atlantis Part 2
When I first heard that Horizon was making a programme about Hancock & Bauval's theories, I was very pleased. Their books set out their argument in considerable depth and I was looking forward to seeing how well they would stand up to serious academic scrutiny. I was therefore surprised and dismayed to find that the programme gave an extremely unbalanced view of the issues involved
For example, you showed an interview with Robert Schoch where he states that in his opinion the underwater ruins near Japan are a natural feature. Obviously you felt that he is a geologist who is well qualified to speak on such matters. Despite this, you did not ask him about a subject of much greater relevance to the programme - the age of the Sphinx. I am sure that it had not escaped your notice that he has dated the Sphinx to between 5000 & 7000 BC on the basis of rain erosion.
Instead you briefly presented a salt erosion theory, and said that 'the rainfall theory had not stood up to the scrutiny of geologists'. So please could you tell me: do you consider Schoch to be a geologist or not?
It also seems that while you gave considerable time to Ed Krupps' view that the pyramid map of Orion is upside down, you totally ignored the counter argument that Hancock & Bauval put to you. Their point could easily have been explained visually in under half a minute, so it is not as if you did not have time to show it.
How can you call Horizon a science programme if it ignores some of the key arguments. I am sure that Dr Feder would agree that if you ignore the evidence, what you are doing is not science, can't be science and must therefore be based on fantasy!
I hope that you will be taking steps to restore the reputation I had once thought that your programme deserved. After all, there are not many good documentaries on television nowadays.
Subject: Horizon comments
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 16:24:30 -0000
From: "Geoff Carse" <Geoff@carse1.freeserve.co.uk>
I find it puzzling how so many who sat quite contentedly watching the three episodes of Graham Hancock's "Quest for a Lost Civilisation", which was devoted entirely to the views and ideas of Mr. Hancock -- totally ignoring the counter-arguments of orthodox science -- suddenly, when Horizon came along with the (apparently) well-reasoned objections of Egyptology, Astronomy, etc. are all sent hopping mad, protesting at what a totally one-sided and unbalanced programme it was. Don't you think it better to adopt the idea that, at last, we have now heard both sides to an argument and as such are in a much better position to make an intelligent and reasonable deduction by ourselves? After all, if this is the best that orthodox science can throw at us, and if Graham Hancock can defend himself against what was clearly a vicious personal attack (and we hope and expect that he will) then so much the better for us and for him.
That said, and convincing though many of Horizon's arguments may have been, one thing did leave an impression (or rather struck me more by its total failure to leave an impression), and that was the speed with which they whizzed past their Sphinx argument - "mumble, mumble, salt erosion, mumble, mumble." Pardon me!!! What was that? We're talking about a monument that is the subject of several documentaries alone; a monument that is largely responsible for reawakening the whole Atlantis idea, and which forms a large part of the work of Hancock and indeed the work of many others; a monument that has come to be regarded as the best evidence we have that civilisation may be a good deal older than hitherto imagined. You can't just brush it aside in just one or two flippant sentences.
In the previous documentaries I have seen, the makers have produced a qualified geologist, Dr Robert Schoch, who tells us in his own words that the Sphinx shows definite signs of water erosion, which only could have occurred at least seven or eight thousand years BC. I expected the Horizon programme to at least match this. If they were so keen to produce their experts every step of the way then why couldn't they in this instance? Instead what did they do? We have the words of the narrator saying: "Geologists say that it is salt erosion." Sorry, not good enough. Not nearly good enough. Produce your geologist please. Get him or her to explain to us how salt erosion can eat away the Sphinx but not the pyramids.
Another possible flaw I noticed was the orthodox view that the Egyptians were obsessed with precision and accuracy and criticised Graham Hancock for taking the rather wishy-washy attitude that accuracy was secondary to symbolism: "It doesn't need to be an exact match." However, again from previous documentaries I have seen, I remember the orthodox Egyptologists stating adamantly that the face on the Sphinx was that of Khafre and you can plainly see that it is by comparing it with the other known statues there are of him. The documentary then produces Lieutenant Frank Domingo, a forensic artist, who goes on to prove that the face on the Sphinx is not that of Khafre because the entire structure of the face is different. The Egyptologists are then seen flailing their arms in the air and proclaiming: "It's not the accuracy that matters but the symbolism." I rest my case.
Another point I could mention was the fact that the "pyramids were tombs" argument was not even tackled during the Horizon programme. This is unfortunate since this represents one of the biggest mysteries of ancient Egypt. I myself have been to the Great Pyramid, I have also been to the Valley of the Kings; where I visited several burial sites. There is no similarity. When you walk into one of the tombs in the Valley of the Kings there is an appropriate feeling of reverence. As you make your way down the long and spacious corridor you see that every part of the walls, and even the ceiling, has been painstakingly hand-painted. Also in the burial chamber itself you are struck by the amount of work that has gone into making a beautiful last resting-place for their king. The builders knew that they had to make it impressive since the king came here not only after his death but also many times during his lifetime (death being regarded as just another aspect of life and so must be confronted during the king's reign). Faced with that fact how then do orthodox Egyptologists explain the layout of the Great Pyramid? As the great Pharaoh Khafre made his occasional visit into the narrow, cramped and unpainted pyramid he would eventually find himself at the foot of the Grand Gallery, where he would then have to clamber his way up on his hands and knees to get to the top (at the risk of breaking his neck, for to slip here may have proven fatal). Then, reaching the entrance to the King's Chamber, he would again have to suffer the indignity of having to crawl on his hands and knees to get inside. Once through, he would find himself in a small room, staring at four dull blank and totally unimpressive walls -- his eternal resting-place. Not terribly reverential for someone who was regarded as the embodiment of Horus on Earth.
None of this, of course, acts as evidence for an "Atlantis", but it does suggest that, contrary to what the Horizon people may think, there are still a lot of unanswered questions that have yet to be tackled -- on both sides of the lost civilisation fence.
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 05:06:25 PST
From: "Steven Williams" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Yes that Horizon series was terrible, all the so called experts knew absolutely nothing about anything. The Egyptians saw the source of the Nile as North therefore our South was their North and vice versa, and nearly every culture have the same legends and gods just with different names associated with them and stories of advanced people teaching them agriculture and civilization. The people on that show were so pompous.
Anyway I expressed my opinion on this forum:
Take a look, lots of interesting debate about ancient monuments and stuff.
Subject: They are afraid of you, Graham Hancock!
Date: Sun, 14 Nov 1999 09:10:30 EST
Why are they so afraid? Knowledge is power. Could you possibly be taking some of their power away?
Why do all of your theories make perfect logical sense, and all of theirs are just bits and pieces of logic?
Why has the excavation of the tunnels under Giza been kept secret for over 20 years now? Could it be a revolution of belief?
Why doesn't Ken Feder, in his e-mail reply, acknowledge the fact that all civilizations "steal" from past civilizations? As an American, I was taught from very early on that we did not invent democracy. We built on the seeds of past civilizations. Surely we can see that his idea where each culture is separate, created unto itself, is the heart of discrimination. It is in this fallacy that we perpetuate the separation of all the people of the Earth.
The implication of Nazism reflects back onto those who implied it to you.
Why can't they see that it is their beliefs that lead to fascism?
Thank you for continuing the quest.
Subject: Part 2 of Horizon
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 11:47:24 -0000
From: "Hawkmoon69" <email@example.com>
Reply-To: "Hawkmoon69" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I was quite looking forward to the second episode. I actually thought that the suggestions being made in the 1st episode would be addressed and explained.
Instead, it was like a hunt. I've seen some massacring in interviews in my time, but not one of these came as close to the sadistic editing job done by the BBC.
I used to enjoy Horizon, but I am now calling for a boycott until a full apology has been received by yourself & Mr Bauval.
Furthermore, I feel that the BBC should be forced to make a 3rd episode correcting the now widely held misconceptions that have arisen since the 2nd episode.
Subject: Debunking Typical BBC
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 23:05:44 +0000
From: Janet Smart <email@example.com>
I was disgusted at the treatment of your work by the Horizon programe. I have read all your books listened to your arguments over the years and know that you did not have the chance to put your case forward. This does not surprise me as for many years I have been fighting the cruel practice of hunting with dogs. As the BBC is full of mindless morons we have never had a chance either to present a fair argument.
I think your work treads on the toes of many influential people in the same way. Do not be down hearted Graham you know in your heart as I do that you are right. Your works and Robert's are wonderful you will leave a legacy to future generations and you will win as I almost have with mans barbarity to wild mammals.
Subject: (no subject)
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 17:52:56 EST
I watched the Horizon programme expecting an unbiased and thoughtful consideration of the very valid points made by G Hancock and others - I was horrified at the treatment of this very serious subject - Horizon obviously had a preconceived idea and set out to "prove" it at any cost!
In the end they only made themselves look "anally retentive!"
Good luck with continued research - await next book with interest!
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 1999 19:17:37 -0000
From: "Jones, Ellen" <Ellen.Jones@cwcom.co.uk>
To: "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com>
When I first read Fingerprints of the Gods, I was mesmerised by every chapter. Over subsequent years, I have read practically every publication that has hit the shelves (I must be a marketeers dream), and have continued to be captivated by the mysteries and enigmas surrounding Atlantis, Egypt, the ancient cultures of South America and so on. However, over the past few months my bubble has become somewhat deflated.
This began when I read Robert Schoch's 'Voices of the Rocks'. In this, the suggestion that the Piri Reis (and other) maps show Antarctica free from ice, as we know it to looks from seismic surveys, is called into question on the basis that without the immense weight of ice the continent would rise considerably above it's current elevation, and would therefore take on a completely different coastal pattern. With equal conviction & sound reasoning, he was able to suggest other methods of erosion that could cause the Sphinx to show the weathering marks which have been used to 'prove' a much earlier date for the structure. As yet, I have not seen a response from Graham Hancock or Robert Bauval on these issues, but would be interested to hear their views.
I then moved on to 'Giza The Truth' by Ian Lawton & Chris Ogilvie-Herald. Again, more of my illusions were shattered, particularly with regard to the 'hoax' graffiti marks in the relieving chambers of the great pyramid which have been attributed to Howard Vyse. Also of interest were the revelations concerning Gatenbrinks's 'door' and the pieces of cedar wood. Why has the piece of wood shown to us at the 1998 Questing Conference still not been sent for carbon dating? Additionally, I would like to know how Bauval can state with such conviction that Gatenbrink's measurements of the angles of the shafts prove that these were trained 'like gun barrels' on the stars on a particular date, when Gatenbrink never divulged precise measurements to him and when one shaft has not been properly explored at all in order for such measurements to be obtained.
The Horizon programme was, on the whole, a huge disappointment to me on two levels. On one level, I felt that the programme was unduly biased, and my general impression was that the interviews with Graham Hancock had been so selectively edited as to deny him a fair crack at the whip. However, the greater disappointment to me was that when criticisms were made of Hancock's findings and flaws identified that he was allowed to answer, he chose to take on a defensive attitude, accusing orthodox thinkers of nit-picking, rather than offering a plausible counter-argument. To my mind, the lack of accuracy revealed in the correlation between the Angkor Wat monuments and the Giza pyramids in relation to their supposed celestial counterparts was not nit-picking atall. In Hancock's books, the accuracy of the correlations has been marvelled at and used as almost incontrovertible proof for his theories. Here I feel that Hancock has been far too economical with the truth, preferring to bend the facts to fit his theory rather than building his theory around facts. This makes me wonder how many other 'facts' have been distorted to fit in with his preferred chronology, and swallowed by the uneducated reader.
Although casting a negative shadow over Hancock's work, the recent publications & the Horizon programme have great value and can only encourage further research. Even if the accusations are unfounded, they encourage us all not to believe everything we are told and to question those things that we would like to believe. Without this, the 10500BC theory would stand to become the 'new' orthodox view which nobody is allowed to question, and all those that stick rigidly to it will be as bad as those who are currently castigated for standing in the way of alternative thinking.
Subject: What the program didn't say
Date: Tue, 16 Nov 1999 18:13:03 -0000
From: "Luke Threadgould" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Reply-To: "Luke Threadgould" <email@example.com>
Regarding the Orion-Pyramid / North-South argument, It amazed me, that it wasn't pointed out to the 'nice' Horizon people, that, due to polar flips, the north was south and the south was north. Indeed, this makes the Giza map all the more remarkable, because it is saying that it was designed to show that magnetic poles do reverse.
I feel this is a fundamental argument, and along with Piri Reis's copies of ancient maps, which clearly show the north and south pole directions reversed, are clear evidence for our beliefs.
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 08:24:20 -0000
From: Matthew Whittaker <matthew.whittaker@Diam-Int.com>
To: "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com>
Congratulations on reaching the stage when the orthodox establishment are getting worried.
Its taken you a long time and mountains of research but you are now there. Well done to all.
We should not be surprised that society and established teaching has continued to move further away from enlightened and spiritual belief.
After all you know well that we have ancient prophecy that tells us this is how it will be before the end of this world age. "In the last days perilous times shall come. For men will be lovers of their own selves...lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God. Having a form of Godliness but denying the power of it..." (2 Tim. 3:1-5)
Take heart Sir. Remember before the Judgement Seat of Osiris you can say "I have not put out fire when it should burn". Let them Burn themselves out. Reliable prophecy also tells us that the long term future belongs to those who know and learn from the ancients.
Keep up the good work & we'll keep on reading.
Subject: Horizon Forum
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 1999 14:55:39 +0000
Hi Graham and friends,
Judging by the flood of well-wishing messages to your e-mail address, I would have thought that Horizon might show us some of the responses they received after airing the two programmes. So I hopped along to their Web page expecting to see a healthy discussion in progress. In the right hand frame I found the encouraging link "Forum" and clicked in expectation...
Try it for yourself and see this (as of 14h00 Friday 19th. November 1999) :
Atlantis Uncovered: Forum
Until Thursday 4th November 1999
... [Some Ken Feder stuff] ...
This forum is now closed. Ken Feder's answers to your questions will appear here shortly.
[Back to my own comments]
Doesn't this suggest that the aims of the programme and those of Feder are the same? If not, why not provide the opportunity for answers from Robert Bauval (for example)? And why is there no forum at all for the second programme? As for my own view, I am quite willing to accept that there are flaws in the alternative view, as well as in the orthodox; but I am enraged at the flagrant bias shown in both episodes in favour of the establishment. What really left me with a sour taste, however, were the cheap and dirty parting shots of both programmes: the slippery-slope-to-Nazism and the New York star correlation. I was left feeling personally insulted because I am one of the many readers who take the alternative theories seriously. The second merely insults my intelligence, the first puts me in the jack-boots of an Auschwitz guard.
Thanks for providing me with the opportunity to state my views.
Subject: Radio-carbon dating...
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 19:42:44 -0000
From: "Jon Moore" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I watched both Horizon programmes with great interest and was saddened to see how you were treated by Auntie. I would like to draw you on a specific question if I may; to quote from your official letter of complaint to the BBC, "YOU CAN ONLY DATE ORGANIC MATERIALS ---- BONE, CHARCOAL, WOOD, ETC - WITH RADIOCARBON TECHNOLOGY; YOU CANNOT DATE ROCK-HEWN STRUCTURES SUCH AS THE GREAT SPHINX OF GIZA OR THE GIGANTIC MEGALITHS OF THE PUMA PUNKU IN TIAHUANACO."
With this fact in mind, are you aware of any studies employing the techniques of either potassium-argon or uranium-series dating to date the megalithic structures at Tiahuanaco ? I understand (from my admittedly limited knowledge) that uranium-series dating is used to measure the radioactive decay of uranium isotopes in rocks made up of calcium carbonates. Unfortunately I do not know the chemical composition of the megaliths at Tiahuanaco, but nonetheless, it struck me as an interesting point.
I look forward to hearing any comments that you may have.
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 16:41:40 +0000
From: "K.Raman" <email@example.com>
I believe the BBC treated you unfairly.
Keep up the good work.
I am interested to know about your explorations in India.
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 1999 12:25:46 GMT
From: "steven russell booth" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Dear me! Judging by the ambush and attack, by what is considered to be a highly regarded TV programme, you seem to have touched a raw nerve in certain quarters.
The below mentioned books are but three references to similarly interesting theories that, collectively, offer support to your main idea that there was a knowledgeable and somewhat advanced civilisation further back in time than convential theorists propose.
If you are already aware of these subjects then I'll apologise now.-
Ovason's subject would probably be of greater interest to you in light of the cheap jibe, offered by the Horizon programme in using the Leo constellation theory.
You are obviously big enough to stand by your ideas. I don't think that a "sucker punch", like that programme is good enough to undermine your work.
There are many "joe public's" like me out here, who saw through the programme and accept that it was a poor attempt to rubbish certain theories, whether it was internal TV politics or something larger and a little more sinister, who knows, more to the point, who cares.
You have shed light on a very interesting subject. Don't be distracted by these playground antics. Stay true to your audience and watch it grow.
Who knows what trick will be played on you next. If you can turn them round to your own advantage without getting involved in a tit for tat slanging match, then all's well and good.
Yours, watching with interest
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 23:26:19 +0000
From: astradyn <email@example.com>
Organization: Netscape Online member
To Graham Hancock,
I was shocked to watch the Horizon programme and see yourself being dragged over hot coals. It was sad to see a thought-provoking topic being used to discriminate against someone who could make humanity think about itself.
It is the thought that humanity could "wake up" & start to ask questions, that the people in power use the media to tarnish your reputation.
This has happened before. People like David Icke have had the same experience as yourself.
Since your first book, I have been inspired to follow my own research. I once met yourself at a your opening of "The Mars Mystery" in Charing Cross. I was one of the public to ask if there were any sites around the globe that corresponded to star alignments in the zodiac systems.
I have been researching into different areas on the planet corresponding to different "Gates of Time". With the thirteen crystal skulls at thirteen sites across the globe. At the given moment that will awake humanity and herald a new age in our civilization. Unfortunately most of humanity wants to fight in wars & better themselves over someone less fortunate. For those few who feel we have lost something all we offer is support and hope that you will continue pursue your research.
Subject: Dear Sir
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 10:12:57 -0500
From: Daniel Frome <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Organization: Resource, A Communications Group
I have been a curious follower of Mr. Hancock's work for some time.
Judging from the controversy over this latest television documentary, I was wondering if Mr. Hancock has considered a documentary production of his own.
Because I live in America, I have been unable to view the "Horizon" program, so I cannot make any evaluative judgement on it. That said, I have read some of Mr. Hancock's work in question. I can see from the evidence offered on this site, that the program has misrepresented a great deal of that work.
I work within the film and video industry. Because of this I have an avid interest in any film or video documentation concerning the work of Mr. Hancock.
I have seen the Discovery Channel show that Graham Hancock is featured in, but that is all.
I feel as though the power of Mr. Hancock's work could find a much larger audience well beyond the restraints of educational cable television.
Is there any information available on future projects?
Subject: Bravo Bravo
Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 16:01:18 -0500
From: "Kishore Dudani" <email@example.com>
Don't let B@#$%&*! keep you down.
Was surprised about your misquoted comments re: FlemAths - What a surprise about the selective editing.
Good thing you set it straight....
Regards Kishore Dudani
Subject: Horizon and all that.
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 20:54:47 -0000
From: "nmr" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Three points about recent events surrounding your studies. Firstly, the Horizon programme. Whilst it is apparent that some of your conclusions are open to debate, there is no doubt that there is an insidious agenda when you are not allowed to reply to allegations and claims that debunk your work and studies.
Which leads me onto my second point of a recent book, the Stargate conspiracy. Although not very well written and presented, I feel that it highlights concerns of the validity of some of your work. However as I pride myself on having an open mind on subject matter of this importance, what are your thoughts on the their claims? It appears to me somewhat of a vendetta against yourself, Bauval et al. If their theory is to be believed that there is a conspiracy going on, then one must ask the question who's interest's are they working in? It is easy to hide behind then innuendo that it is in the public's best interest's to inform them. Me, I'm not too sure.
Finally and thirdly in regards to Fingerprints of the Gods, what sort of feedback have you had from your conclusions about an impending cataclysm that is to damage mankind.
Well anyway keep up the good work. Between the arguments presented by yourself and other parties, the truth will out. Maybe not in our lifetime, but one can only live in hope.
Subject: In support of you
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 02:24:26 -0000
From: "Paul Martin" <email@example.com>
I am 33 years old and until about 3 or 4 years ago I didn't have much interest in ancient history other than what you might call the "in awe" factor. That all changed when I came across "Fingerprints of The Gods" in a local bookstore, an amazing book that totally opened my eyes and mind to the many unsolved mysteries in our world, both past and still evident.
Looking at my bookshelf now I can see about 25 or so books giving information and theories on subjects ranging from Atlantis to ancient ultrasonic tooling techniques and many things in-between. The oddest book ,for me, in this collection is The Bible, this is due to the fact that I have never really been religious as I think that if I choose one particular religion, I must then be denying all of the others, either in part or wholly, and I just cannot believe that only one religion knows the truth. I actually believe that if there is an "Almighty God" He wouldn't segregate everyone in such a manner to always be against each other, and therefore I think that all religions probably carry some truth which we could trace back to a common source, which may tie in very nicely with many of your and other similar theories, and this is why I am currently studying the Bible, as I cannot possibly accept or deny anything unless I have investigated the subject properly.
I am at present awaiting delivery of Robert Bauval's new book, "Secret Chamber", which I am sure will be an enthralling read, as have the following :- Heaven's Mirror, The Orion Mystery, The Mars Mystery, Keeper of Genesis etc.
Moving on to something different, I have to tell how utterly disgusted I was at the recent Horizon 2-parter. After part 1, I went into work and was greeted with comments such as "there go all of these stupid new world theories you've got", to which I promptly replied "you'll see next week when we hear Graham Hancock's side of the story" as I was confident of the strength of your arguments (and still am) and confident that the B.B.C. would present a fair and two sided documentary. You can obviously imagine my horror at part 2, especially from a t.v. company that I have known and (mostly) trusted for the best part of 30 years. This is the company that I have to pay over £100 a year to, to allow me to watch the free commercial channels we have (I.T.V.,CH4 etc) regardless of how often (or little) I tune in to B.B.C.
I wish you all the best in your complaint to the Beeb and I can't wait to see their apology and your deserved vindication on the screen in the near future.
Changing subject again (there is so much that I would like to discuss with you) do you really think that the proposed opening of the Gantenbrink door on live TV at the turn of the millennium will be genuine, and that this will be the first time it has been opened? A very exciting but intriguing event !!!
In closing I would like to say that I hope my comments on religion have not offended you as I am unsure as to your particular beliefs in this area, and I'm hoping you can understand my reasoning on this subject.
A searcher of the truth for the benefit of us all,
Subject: FW: Horizon.. what are you up too?
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 1999 13:56:01 -0000
From: "Ronny Adsetts" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: "Graham Hancock" <email@example.com>
From: Nigel King [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: 20 November 1999 11:22
Subject: FW: Horizon.. what are you up too?
To Mr Hancock/bauval
Like everyone who watched the Horizon programme and now a week or so later I feel that they were out to rubbish you for sure! and in a very bad way too. I felt that I had to write to the producer/editor, the editor isn't back at work till Monday 22nd Nov.
I forwarded your first response to the producer with my comments attacted, he may have already seen it but..Anyway he sent me a reply.
It was clear what they were trying to do I just hope all the people out there don't chuck out all there books which you and Bauval and others have written
PS please keep up the good work.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Hale
> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 1999 2:56 PM
> To: Nigel King
> Subject: RE: Horizon.. what are you up too?
> These matters are being dealt with by the BBC. We tried to make a fair
> film about complex ideas.
> Do we know each other?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nigel King
> Sent: Thursday, November 18, 1999 2:53 PM
> To: Chris Hale
> Subject: FW: Horizon.. what are you up too?
> I sat down to watch your programme Atlantis Reborn,expecting a fair
> argument; but what I watched was a very biased attempt to rubbish Graham
> Hancock/Robert Bauval.
> I'm sure by now you must of had some feedback for or against and I'm sure
> you've seen this letter do you feel that you did a fair production that
> gave both sides of the argument?
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 1999 01:35:30 -0800
From: Simon Ireland <email@example.com>
I sent this to BBC . I hope it helps.
You need to do another program and get this sorted out. You are losing a lot of credibility.
I am writing from the USA and it is you , not Hancock , that looks like you need to do some explaining. I am "sitting on the fence" so to speak.
As an associate of a major international media mogul my advice to you and your colleagues is to find a way of going upstairs and getting some more $ to add a few more episodes to the program next season. I don't like the media to look like we have come away with this with mud on our faces. If its viewers you want, then you need to appeal to both audiences simultaneously. Position yourself as an arbitrator. You may be surprised that you and not Hancock/Bauval and his enemies look bad. You are getting slaughtered by Hancock's website and they are going to have another best seller on their hands and end up making a program about you! The year 2000 is approaching and men like Hancock are raising everybody's eyebrows........The credibility of BBC is also at stake. You owe it to the general audience, to Hancock/Bauval, the BBC and your careers to re-do this program.
Subject: The Books
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 18:59:36 +0900
Dear Mr. Hancock,
I really enjoy your books. Although I think it will take a little longer for your theories to be disproved or proved beyond doubt, I think you have already sowed the seeds for more fruitful discovery in the future.
What I like most about your books is the excitement of discovery that brings out a child-like fascination and wonderment of peering into a hidden and unknown world. There is much to be said about the self-proclaimed authorities in the world and your challenges to so-called "conventional" wisdom are refreshing to say the least.
We need more people like you to give us back the joy of intellectual inquiry rather than bore ourselves with tomes that tell us, "this is the only truth, commit it to memory."
Now that your books have planted the seeds of inquiry, I hope that they bear the well deserved fruits of a long endeavor.
Subject: This one's on me
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 20:42:42 -0000
From: "Susan Walsh" <Suewalsh@tesco.net>
In the Horizon programme, one of the criticisms levelled at the idea of the three pyramids reflecting Orion's belt was that at the time in question, the stars were upside-down. What confuses me, is your confusion. If what those guys built was intended to be a reflection of the skies - with the message that what occurs on earth is influenced by the stars - then "upside-down" is precisely how they would have been built.
I may be wrong.
Subject: Open Minds
Date: Mon, 22 Nov 1999 21:39:02 -0000
From: "Trev & Chris Munkenbeck" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
For many years I was brought up to believe in the experts. Having a background in science I learned all the theories without question....., they were all clever people and must be right.
But in recent times I have begun to question what are exactly that...theories....and we all have a right to our own beliefs, backed up by some evidence, if it is available.
The Horizon programme left me confused. Had I really been duped by you and Robert Bauval into thinking that there could be other explanations, that you had dreamed up a theory and then tried to fit the evidence to the theory even with serious mismatches? Its at times like this that an inner sense can be vital, like many I do believe that there were ancient civilizations with far greater knowledge than us, and maybe traces can be found. My concern is.....would we ever be told!!!. From the discovery of the Crystal Skulls, and the hidden door in the Gantenbrink Shaft in the Pyramids, and the pyramids on Mars, there seems to be a reluctance by the scientists to look more closely at these. They seem to treat you and others like you as impudent upstarts with no training who don't know what they are talking about!!.
I have read a number of David Ickes books as well as yours, and the Horizon programme smacks a bit of big brother control that he has exposed. Perhaps you are getting close to something that some people don't want discovered!
I was pleased to see your response, as your comments on the Horizon programme didn't add up somehow, in fact the programme was, thankfully, so badly made that there were glaring examples of attempted ridicule. Yes, when did the scientists learn to carbon date rock!!. And what was the point of matching the Leo constellation with landmarks in New York (had they all been churches then it might have made its point)?.
What has happened is that, it seems, many people have e-mailed this site, and like-minded people have come together in one place. Horizon has shot itself in the foot, unfortunately, whatever the topic is now I will doubt that it is anything more than entertainment with little factual basis.
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 19:48:42 -0000
From: "Suzanne Maplesden" <Suzanne@maplesdens.freeserve.co.uk>
Dear Mr Hancock,
I kind of stumbled on your work by accident (looking for a long book to read on a long flight!) but am now hooked! I find your way of looking at subjects that are supposed to be "understood" very refreshing, and to be honest it's nice to not feel like the only person in the world still asking questions about the origin of humanity and what can be learned from the past. When I saw the Horizon program advertised I thought how interesting it looked, and when I saw that you were to be interviewed I thought that it would be an open minded program, how wrong can a person be!? I thought that they treated you very poorly and agree with other responders on the web site that they tried very hard to belittle your comments and treat your work as unimportant and a little "out there!" Thank you for posting your comments on the site so your readers can see for themselves how much you were misquoted and misinterpreted. I hope this experience has not put you off commenting on T.V in the future.
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 1999 11:53:13 PST
From: "James Eagles" <email@example.com>
Just a quick note to say that I found the Horizon programmes on Atlantis very disappointing, as I'm sure did many other viewers. I had expected more from the BBC, and I was thoroughly appalled that the programme could have been produced by such a group of close-minded individuals.
No one can prove what has taken place in the past with one hundred percent accuracy, we can only hypothesize and use the clues left behind to deduce some of what our pre-history may have been like. But the BBC didn't even grace Mr. Hancock's theories with the slightest degree of intelligence, to them they were just a collection of coincidences and stories. And their treatment of the theories put forward by Mr. Hancock and others were made to look incredulous and plain stupid, to anyone who has not read any of the works published along the lines of these theories.
The Atlantis-Antartica theory "put forward" by Mr. Hancock (according to the BBC) originated, as stated in "Fingerprints of the Gods", by the Flem-Aths.
How details such as this could have been missed by the research team is beyond me.
The programme in general attempted to make a mockery of Mr. Hancock's and Mr. Bauval's work, and others like them. I am disgusted that my licence fee went towards producing this programme, which is a mute point but I felt it had to be said.
Having read "Fingerprints" and "Heaven's Mirror", (both of which are outstanding pieces of research and theoretical discourse) and just starting "Mars Mystery", I can only hope that Graham Hancock and Santha Faiia, and others like them, keep up the excellent work in the quest to solve the mysteries of our pre-history.
Mr. J. Eagles.
Dedicated Servers and Cloud Servers by Gigenet. Invert Colour Scheme / Default