Subject: Re: Horizon/Robert's Book
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 10:30:41 -0000
From: "Emma Holmwood" <email@example.com>
Hello Mr Hancock,
I hope you don't mind, but I am going to leave a strong feedback on the Horizon website. How can I believe any content of their documentary programmes? (Considering I have to pay for their channel on Sky!).
Many items grieved us whilst watching the program. One particular item bothered me. You obviously gave them the rights to use parts of the underwater footage from Japan? Yet they chose to use parts which showed the least convincing terrain. Unfortunately we have only seen one of the Quest programmes as our terrestrial aerial was broken when the series was aired, but from what we saw at your presentation in East Grinstead where were far more convincing selections they could have used?
It is such a shame to see pioneers, such as you and Robert have to receive this kind of publicity. They should give this kind of treatment to the money grabbing layabouts, not those who devote such time and energy to their beliefs.
I have just received Robert's new book. He lists an acknowledgement for the Horizon programme? Was this premature or have they helped in the past? Or is this listing due to how he believed the programme would be composed?
Thank you for your time
Keep up the good work!
Subject: Fw: Graham Hancock
Date: Sat, 27 Nov 1999 23:04:57 -0000
From: "Emma Holmwood" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Here is a copy of an email I have sent to Horizon.
Keep up the good work
----- Original Message -----
I recently watched your program 'Atlantis Reborn'. Having read a few of Mr Hancock's books I must admit I am absolutely amazed.
I believed the BBC to produce non-biased documentaries. What happened? I noticed several mistakes, from measuring an angle between the Nile and the 3 Pyramids and the Milky way and Orion's Belt, (you could have at least used the same pyramid), to not allowing Mr Hancock to explain why he does not use carbon dating (I'd like to see an archaeologist stand amongst their own kind and declare they've radio carbon dated a monument hewn from natural rock).
Other items I cannot believe include the credit for the Atlantis Antarctica theory given to Mr Hancock. When I checked my copy of Fingerprints of the Gods, he merely reports of the couple who deserve the credit for this theory, Rand and Rose Flem-Ath.
The most laughable part had to be your little 'New York City' theory, I mean come on! Mr Hancock's work is not a few pinpoints and, hey wow, a star constellation. There is a great deal of local evidence involved. Do tell me about any Leonine Myths in New York? Maybe a religion from the past? Perhaps any overpowering causeways lining up with the Sun? Why did you not include the Giza causeways lining up with the sunrise at key times during the year?
Surely this is a little harder evidence than you chose to include, and speaking of choosing, you certainly did not choose the best footage available to show evidence of structures off the shore of Japan. Have seen far more convincing footage, which I am sure you could have shown.
I could go on further but what's the point, you have made a grand attempt at ruining a good man's work.
Quite honestly I have lost all faith in the Horizon programming. Since the showing of this documentary I find myself wondering whether to believe what I am watching on the Horizon channel at all?
Subject: Fw: Misrepresented history.
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 01:49:53 -0800
From: "Techsciencelaboratories" <Techsciencelaboratories@tinyonline.co.uk>
From: Techsciencelaboratories <Techsciencelaboratories@tinyonline.co.uk>
Subject: Misrepresented history.
Date: 28 November 1999 01:46
It is plain for us to see that when you take the evidence that you present into account, our history has indeed been misrepresented. It is so infuriating to me and my friends how orthodox science tries to bury anything that it does not understand, cannot readily explain or, worse, challenges scientifically accepted beliefs and values. It's about power.
Who's in charge? The government doesn't want us to believe in anything that may topple the balance of power. Imagine the sheer level of chaos that would be created if EVERYONE suddenly found out and believed that everything we have been taught was wrong? Or that all these years we had been lied to? That there WAS a greater technology before ours? What control would the government have over us then? I'll tell you. There would be a revolution (and the government can't allow that, can they?)!
Why can't we all embrace what is a chance to learn our true heritage?
I can't even begin to comprehend the implications of what we have begun to realise about our past and to have our ideas and thirst for more truth time and time again dashed to the rocks and/or discredited by people with minds so narrow that they disregard all these possibilities without even trying to understand them? It is a crime against humanity to deny us our past. Do you realise what kind of people are leading us? Don't get me wrong, I'm not an anarchist, I just believe that you (and others like you) have led us onto something that we just cannot afford to ignore. I personally believe that part of the key to our survival lies in learning more about and understanding our past (our real past) and how we as a people perceived the planet and its cycles. The Mayans... the Aztecs... the Egyptians.... what did they have in common? They had all worked out something about our planet and its cyclic changes that spelt disaster. Something that modern science resolutely refuses to consider. HOW VERY DANGEROUS!
Well, thank you so much for reading my letter. I know you are a very busy man and don't let people get you down because there are thousands of people out there who are on your side and we will all together continue our quest for a past, a future and a knowledge which is ours by right. If there is anything at all that I could ever do in aid of you and your work then I would be honoured.
Ben Weston. (electronic musician) Age 25
Subject: Horizon bodge ups!
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 20:08:21 -0000
From: "Bear" <email@example.com>
I missed the Horizon programs, shame as I like to keep up with the alternative side of Egypt etc etc.
I remember a Horizon years ago, whereby a similarly badly put together program, suggested that leg protectors for motorbikes were a good idea. Being a biker I can assure you they're not, and an interesting film of a 'crash test dummy' was cut short, presumably so as not to show that severe damage to the lower legs can result from so called 'leg protectors'.
Frankly the BBC appals me in many ways. I'm a rock music enthusiast and get no radio whatsoever, while classical fans get Radio Three 24 hours a day!!
If I ruled the world.....
Subject: BBC'S MISHANDLING OF HANCOCK AND BAUVAL
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 04:29:03 PST
From: "karin blau" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, STARVLINGB@aol.com, Ken@kledger.freeserve.co.uk, email@example.com
When I read what I have read, and think about what the BBC used to be, it saddens me and makes me laugh at the same time to think what an utterly sickening joke the BBC has become in terms of its journalistic acumen (and integrity, which really doesn't factor into the equation anymore, does it?)
Sorry to say this folks, but the view of English journalism, at least from the west side of the pond, and as far as those who are informed are concerned, is that your reporting skills have been sold out at the expense of page three titty shots, women chomping on hot dogs, princesses tormented and all that jazz. The once proud BBC, heralded, as it was, some twenty years ago as being the true bastion of journalistic integrity in those days gone by has evaporated, and for good reason.
Graham Hancock is one of your finest, Britain, and yet you, the BBC, and at taxpayers expense, find within yourselves some perverse reason to resort to the same degenerate cowardice that your tabloids have become so well-known for around the world.
I'll tell you this much, next time I want to learn about ancient history, if given the choice I'll turn to the nearest junior high school web site than turn to your network. At least with the former I can hope for honesty and impartiality.
Shame on you.
Subject: ONE FINAL WORD ABOUT HANCOCK AND BAUVAL
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 06:25:56 PST
From: "karin blau" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, STARVLINGB@aol.com, Ken@kledger.freeserve.co.uk
I only wish that I could put little graphics on this email, to advise those members of the BBC who were responsible for their irresponsible trashing of Hancock and co. that if they can't read this, to pass the letter on to someone who can for a concise explanation.
The current point of contention? Let me see now, who am I talking to? Professional journalists ? ?
Do you actually think that Hancock came up with the Atlantis/Antarctica theory? How could you, if you read Fingerprints of the Gods? ? ?
He explicitly, explicity (that means, 'in clear English', by the way) states that he did not.
Surely you can't be so intellectually deficient that you would think otherwise, after reading the book. Pains were taken to give credit to the Flem-Aths for their contribution in this area. Sure, Hancock supported the idea, as being highly plausible, but he went to explicit ends to say that it was not his brain-child. Find a baby sitter and ask them to explain the part where he has his falling out with a research assistant on this very issue...
But then again, did you even read the book ? ? ?
This, from the once proud BBC. Tell me, is there some sort of affirmative action program going on over there for illiterate deviants these days?? What depths the BBC has sunk to ! !
My suggestion is that you apologize publicly to Hancock and Bauval for your crass, defaming, inaccurate journalism.
However, the fact is, that I think you actually can read. (otherwise I wouldn't be writing this letter). Therefore I doubt you will own up to your responsibility in this case.
After all, careers and reputations are at stake, right ? ? ?
Subject: Horizon Hatchet
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 17:02:00 -0000
From: "Zoe Lambourne" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
After watching the two Horizon programmes or should I say hatchet jobs, I was left feeling dejected at how many narrow minded people there are around. However reading the encouraging comments on the web site has shown that there are many open mined people out there.
Keep up the good work. The truth will out in the end.
Subject: Take it on the chin, Graham
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 14:30:51 EST
Though I haven't actually seen the Horizon programs in question after reading the transcripts I'm not too sure I would be missing too much other than a lesson in 'how to try and debunk someone's theory.' The fact that you have stirred up a hornet's nest is an achievement in itself. The BBC has long been a subtle tool of propaganda for 'someone's' agenda and unfortunately your work has been subjected to a full broadside from them. Your work strikes at the very soul of man's existence and if could only be proven then it could possibly debase every religion's importance in our modern social framework. Not bad for a day's work. But don't give up though Graham. What you are doing is only looking for the truth amongst all the myths and lies which are fed to the masses by orthodoxy. Again thanks for your EFFORTS.
Subject: From the Ark to the deep
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 20:53:31 -0000
From: "James Taylor" <email@example.com>
Graham, I first began the journey with you at the 'Ark of the Covenant'. I buy each book as it appears. Please keep on with your investigations as an alternative to the mainstream authority view is difficult to obtain these days.
Regards Joanne Taylor
Subject: Web Site & Stuff
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 1999 15:13:01 PST
From: "col busher" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Graham - Excellent web page - keep up the good work. I was so annoyed that I missed the Horizon programme on TV - hearing only about it from my Dad - so I decided to check it out on the web. I am appalled at what I have found. The treatment given to you is undeserved and I really hope that something is done to put out a balanced reaction to the programme - perhaps via Channel 4?
I read Fingerprints in '95 and coupled with Howard Carter's diary of the discovery of Tutankhamun's tomb it is the best book I have ever read. My original copy is long gone - last known location was Australia - but I have attracted many a reader to your work. My wife goes mad at dinner parties as when anyone shows even a passing interest in Egypt - I tend to become a Fingerprints... bore! I expect to see a parody of myself on Harry Enfield's next comedy series...
I am now going to mail my dissatisfaction to the BBC and hope to hear of a broadcasted reaction in the near future.
Subject: The Sign and the Seal
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 12:33:03 -0000
From: Mark Hindmarsh <email@example.com>
To: "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com>
Just a short question.....
After seeing the Fingerprints programs on Discovery a while ago, I finally managed to get the trilogy from Channel 4's video agent, Yalplay. I would also like to purchase another program which I found to be even better than these 3, the treatment to celluloid of The Sign and the Seal. Can you please tell me firstly the name of the Film, and also where you think I can purchase it from??
While I'm here I'd just like to say how horrified I was at the BBC for the construction of the Horizon programmes. Never before have I seen such a blatantly unbalanced, such an unscientific account as those. I sat for the 2 hours, waiting for the point of their argument.....waiting.....waiting......all the while they're simply trying to undermine yours, Robert Bauval's and Rose and Rand Flem-Aths work, whilst missing the point completely - i.e. the signs, both physical and mythological, that you offer in the end pages of Fingerprints toward the destruction of the Earth.
Anyway, hope things are going well. Can't wait to see more underwater stuff.
Subject: What else?
Date: Thu, 2 Dec 1999 21:04:00 -0000
From: "mukker" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Rest assured, that Horizon debacle fooled nobody. The vast majority of the target audience know the crucial parts they left out.
Interesting how they managed to portray Robert Schoch as an 'anti'. The editing surely deserves an Emmy...
Every cloud has a silver-lining, especially transparent ones. This sorry piece of yellow journalism is so bad it will ultimately prove very helpful. You may add my name to the 'outraged' list if it will help re. getting a right of reply from the BBC.
Subject: Horizon programmes
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 14:58:14 -0000
From: "Billy Ronks" <NICHOLAS.CONNOLLY@visionthing.demon.co.uk>
I watched about 3/4 of the second programme and felt (like a lot of people, I think) that it was extremely biased at the least, and also that the methods of argument Horizon used are now starting to become tiresome and blatantly insubstantial, but still feel as if lots of people believe the Horizon version without having any quality evidence presented to them. This is something I find increasingly frustrating to watch.
I have read "Fingerprints" and "The Mars Mystery" - Fantastic
Subject: Atlantis Horizon Programme
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 21:58:36 -0000
From: "P.R.Hilltout" <email@example.com>
Dear Graham Hancock,
I don't have any comment to make about the pros or cons of Atlantis. Its a vast subject. I would like to say that I find your books interesting to read and I find the BBC hypocritical to an extraordinary degree. They will support a programme on any subject and then about once or twice a year they will run a debunk. The best example is the programme they paid for in the 1970's when Henry Lincoln made the documentary about Rennes Le Chateau. He was a BBC researcher at the time. The investigation was the forunner of The Holy Blood and The Holy Grail series of books. Last year they ran a scandalous debunk of Henry Lincoln and the whole subject and resorted to lying about many of the facts but worse still they didn't bother with many facts at all. The whole programme was a disgrace and an insult to the intelligence of the audience. It doesn't matter what view you take, these debunks are an insult to anyone who watches.
Similarly, if they had wanted to debate and refute the Atlantis story, they could have covered the whole subject and cut out the contrived attacks on those who support the possibility. Their failure to stick to an intelligent debate was infuriating to watch. I don't know who made the programme but in my view it was unprofessional and those who made it should be demoted to BBC Sports.
I remember in a similar programme rubbishing the writer of Chariots of the Gods, (not too difficult, with respects to Von Daniken whose claim to fame in my eyes has always been as a trailblazer who managed to get these subjects into print.) The twerps who directed the embarrassing documentary interviewed Thor Hyerdal and edited him in the same way that you were cut up on the recent Horizon programme so he was seeming to be critical of Daniken. What a coup, to show another free thinker who was rubbished by the establishment years ago and he seemed to be agreeing with them. I imagine that Hyerdal was furious. They then ended the film by showing a picture of the pyramids and played the sound of laughter as if one of the Pharoahs was commenting upon Daniken's ideas. Cheap.
Next time that the BBC are keen to interview you, I would record the whole event on your own camera and ask ITV to run it the following night. Take it as a compliment that they showed archeologists landing on a jungle airstrip in the Far East, with Raiders of the Lost Ark style music playing in an obvious attempt to make them seem more exciting.
Subject: The Horizon Amateur Special on the good old BBC
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 22:16:20 -0000
From: "P.R.Hilltout" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I have just read your response to the programme which I should have read before my earlier E-mail. Well done for making a complaint but I fear you may be crediting the programme makers with more intelligence than they possess. Everyone I spoke to following the programme had the same view and the BBC only embarrass themselves by allowing such transparent trash to appear. I am sure that with one exception, an extremely arrogant American on the show, most of the archaeologists who appeared were also dismayed. As I said before, whether you accept the possibility of an earlier civilisation or not, you won't enjoy the spectacle of the BBC trying to get away with an ignorant snowjob, particularly at the public's expense. Tape them at it and demand a public apology next time.
Subject: The Sun Sets on Horizon
Date: Sat, 4 Dec 1999 22:58:18 -0000
From: "P.R.Hilltout" <email@example.com>
Here follows a copy of the complaint I have e-mailed to the BBC:-
I have only seen a few programmes on the BBC that have been as embarrassing as this debunk of the possibility of a pre-civilisation and Atlantis. The others were about Von Daniken - perhaps an easier target and the other an attack on Henry Lincoln a former BBC researcher who was employed to make a documentary on Rennes Le Chateau. The common factor in each case was a contempt for the viewer whatever their opinion might be. I do not hold a firm belief in the existence of Atlantis but I am dismayed when the BBC, at public expense construct a transparent and ignorant personnel attack on any individual or subject. The impression made by the superb programme 'Walking with Dinosaurs' is wasted when the same institution allows such a cheap and amateurish debunk to be made. I can only assume that Horizon consider that a tabloid press approach to science is now in fashion and acceptable to the public. Is it worth watching Horizon in future? How can one tell if either point of view on any subject will be presented honestly. A public apology would seem in order.
Subject: Horizon comments
Date: Sun, 05 Dec 1999 19:53:36 +0000
From: Jon <Rox@stljon.demon.co.uk>
I have been following your research for a number of years now, and I was also one of the unfortunates to witness the recent BBC debacle regarding the lost civilisation hypothesis. I would be very keen to know the progress of the complaints proceedings against the BBC, and if you're interested, I have given their antics a mention in my new website www.ancient-mysteries.com under the section heading "Recent Developments"
Subject: Nasa Plans
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 1999 10:13:04 -0000
From: Robert Stothard <Robert.Stothard@threadneedle.co.uk>
To: "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com>
I am not sure if I have already written to express my disgust at the Horizon programmes however, I am sure that I have written to the BBC to express my extreme disgust (not that I think they will provide an answer).
This e-mail however, is concerning a programme called extreme machines that was aired on the Discovery channel over the weekend and whilst it will give no real substance to your theory I thought that you may find it interesting.
One of NASA's plans to combat the enormous amount of time taken for interstellar travel is to man a spacecraft, not with trained individuals but frozen embryo's. When the craft lands on a distant planet the embryos are thawed out and grow on an Alien world. It struck me as rather odd that the orthodox scientists, rubbish your view of a pre-history civilisation and yet we, ourselves, are planning to become just that by effectively shipwrecking a community of ourselves on a foreign planet. The effect of this would surely be equivalent to "The Quantas Mystery".
Subject: BBC2 Horizon Documentary : Atlantis Reborn screened 4.11.99
Date: Sun, 28 Nov 1999 15:49:16 EST
I have just caught up with your response regarding the above programme. My comments are these :-
1 I fully understand and support most of your objections. However, I don't think it is necessary to resort to statements such as ' I think it should be manifestly obvious to anyone with half a brain that this is indeed a correlation' when referring to the possibility of the pyramids at Giza representing the three stars making up the 'belt of Orion' . I much prefer to persuade through argument, not mockery. There are few issues one can claim to be clearly 'black or white' when dealing with science and ancient history so I think it wise to be cautious.
2 Moving on from what I have just said, it is not necessary to read Einstein's 'Special Theory of Relativity' to know that any observation made by an observer must take into account the position of the observer and whether he/she is moving or at rest. Therefore Dr Krupp is being somewhat unscientific in insisting that the pyramids are 'upside down' in relation to the stars. I do not understand what Dr Krupp means by this statement. There is no 'upside down' in the universe - therefore Dr Krupp needs to define the parameters of his observation of the pyramids with reference to both time and space and also tell us whether this is the only permissible observation that can be made.
This is a serious point. I refer you to a simple (and topical!) example in James Coleman's classic 'Relativity for the Layman' (especially pages 67 and 68). Let me quote a couple of paragraphs :-
"Now suppose there is a 'blow-out' in Orion on the night of March 17, 2000, caused by Betelgeuse exploding. This date, and all the dates mentioned here, refer to our method of keeping track of time on earth. We on earth would not see the blow-out on that date, since Betelgeuse is 300 light years away, which means it would take 300 years for the light waves of the explosion to reach us. This is the only way we would learn of the explosion. The date for us would be 17 March 2300. Somebody on Aldebaran on the other hand, would see the explosion on 17 March 2250, since Aldebaran is 250 light years from Betelgeuse.
It can be seen, then, that the single event of the explosion is not simultaneous to the three different places, since each observes the event at a different time..."
The point I am making is that what an observer sees depends on what is being observed and from where it is being observed. Thus, in theory, for observers who are thousands of light years away from earth, the pyramids have not yet been built, much less aligned to Orion's belt!
3 If I really wanted to be mischievous, I could claim that Dr Krupp's observation is valid - provided his observation is made in respect of an observer looking from the 'other side' of the three stars representing Orion's belt! In other words, an observer on another planet looking past the three stars towards earth would see the same pattern that Dr Krupp claims to see. I could then claim that the builders of the pyramids were time-travellers and that correctly deciphering the positioning, alignment, measurements and mass of the Great Pyramid would tell us from where the extra-terrestrials came from........ As Einstein says, e=mc2, so if you know the mass of an object you can work out the energy so that you can then know how far this energy would take you in space to determine the time-traveller's 'home planet' etc etc......if only!
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 1999 11:53:45 GMT
From: "Justin McClintock" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
9 November 1999
Mr F. Steel
BBC Programme Complaints
Dear Mr Steel,
I rarely watch BBC TV as I regard the standards to be declining. However, I made an exception to view the recent BBC2 Horizon programme (4/11/1999) "Atlantis Reborn", which proved disappointing to myself and friends who watched it, and which I believe warrants this letter of complaint.
It appeared to me that the programme was not so much an attempt to debunk the ancient story of Atlantis but rather a dishonest attempt to discredit the authors Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval.
In episode 1 ("Atlantis Uncovered", 28/10/99), the unsuspecting viewers were warned by a ranting figure on the screen that studying the Atlantis subject could be "dangerous", given that the Nazis also investigated it. What a ludicrous red herring and highly offensive to Jewish Atlantis researchers!
The melodramatic background music only added to the sense of contrivance and theatre. One wondered also if the sample of academics represented in the programme are so sure of their case in dismissing Atlantis as just a myth, why they are so threatened by the Graham Hancocks of this world. It was as if to say, how dare Hancock challenge the current orthodox view on Atlantis. The sense of hostility towards Hancock came across strongly to the viewer, further fuelled by the emotions of pique and jealousy that his book "Fingerprints of the Gods" has been a spectacular and lucrative bestseller.
The second episode of the programme was even more flawed than the first at various levels, for example content:
Where the presenter claimed that Hancock and "others" queried the antiquity of the Sphinx as being older than the orthodox line, pointedly omitting the name of the geologist, Dr R Schoch, who has dated the Sphinx older than the pyramids. (Schoch was only introduced towards the end of the programme, notably this time opposing Hancock -- re the undersea stone structure near Japan).
The astronomer, Ed Krupp, did not, I feel, conclusively rebut Bauval's (whom Horizon dismissed as an "engineer"), correlation of the Giza pyramids' outline with that of the Belt of Orion, by their being designed upside down. The Giza design may indeed have been meant as a symbolic correlation by the ancient Egyptians, as Hancock was here allowed to suggest. Also, the Draco constellation argument against Hancock was equally unconvincing since obviously only the chief temples at Angkor would have been included in the design, not the entirety of the temples. Horizon's facetious "Leo constellation" correlation with urban features in New York without any historical context or reference, likewise failed to make a convincing case against Hancock's sky/ground correlations, which do have religious and mythical contexts. (Also, bringing up Hancock's study of Mars and its controversial "face" was a ploy used to further ridicule him).
The Horizon team's "impression management" of the author failed to be open handed, by shooting mostly unflattering, partial angles of Hancock's face during his interview, instead of showing the viewer a clear, full frontal view of his face, such as Hancock appeared to come over as a "baddie" who hadn't done his homework (eg dating of the -- eg Tiahuanaco -- stone megalithic sites which, in fact, cannot be carbon dated.
Like, I'm sure, the other viewers of your show, I'm fully in favour of the orthodox view of Atlantis being presented informatively and objectively with valid criticisms being levelled at Bauval and Hancock, providing a balanced view of their arguments. However, these were mostly omitted or misrepresented.
Indeed, instead of congratulating people like Bauval and Hancock for exploring original and fascinating areas of debate in their books on the tantalising subject of Atlantis, and the true antiquity of world stone monuments, they have been the target of a jealous hatchet job by a few people with an axe to grind, posturing behind the "respectability" and reputation of the Horizon programme. And this came over to the viewer.
Let's hope Bauval and Hancock succeed in taking up the challenge extended mockingly to them on the programme, and indeed, rediscover Atlantis - truly an "Atlantis Reborn". The truth is out there.
Subject: Horizon stand firm !!!!!!!
Date: 09 Dec 99 05:09:39 +0000
From: Geoff Leavold <email@example.com>
To: horizoncomments <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Having sent 2 e-mails of complaint to Horizon about the way you and your work were misrepresented, I received today an e-mail back from them.
The short reply include the words "...Horizon stands by the programme that was transmitted." It goes on to say that your formal complaint is being investigated by the appropriate unit at the BBC and so... "In fairness to Mr Hancock we do not feel it is appropriate to comment any further until their enquiries are complete."
They failed again to answer my questions enquiring when Horizon viewers are going to get an apology, or if and when a third programme will be made to redress the balance, as it were.
Having returned from a week in Giza/Luxor only two days ago, during which time I read Robert Bauval's latest book, I feel newly inspired and need to see justice and openness prevail, so I immediately re-e-mailed the BBC on the Horizon programme, hence the reply I received today and from which I have quoted from above.
Subject: (no subject)
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 1999 18:05:33 EST
I've watched your recent fracas with the BBC with some interest. I wonder what it is about new ideas that makes some people so angry.
I have had some personal experience of the fury invoked in human nature by the incursion of 'the new'. A couple of months ago my first book, was published. It's a 'revisionist' study of the life of Lewis Carroll, (called 'In the Shadow of the Dreamchild'), that takes the radical view that the popular image of the man (as paedophile etc) is largely mythic, and quite unsupported by the evidential reality.
I knew it might offend some of the 'authorities' who have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, but I was unprepared for the sheer rage directed at me from people with nothing, apparently, to lose, but who, seemed to NEED to believe in this fantasy and wanted to savage me for depriving them of it. I have even had calls for my book to be burned!
It has made me wonder about how rational we human beings can really claim to be. Do we really establish our truths through reason and analysis, as we like to think? Or is our version of reality shaped merely by our wish to believe? Incidentally, I suspect Carroll would have been fascinated by your work. If you have ever been interested in him, maybe you'd like to read my re-assessment - I hope you'd find it persuasive.
Subject: A coup against the status quo
Date: Thu, 09 Dec 1999 11:29:01 PST
From: "Maxime Doucet" <email@example.com>
Dear Mr. Hancock,
I have followed the whole Giza debate for a few years now and I have put special interest into alternate theories such as yours. I have also given a closer look to biblical and mythological legends which are closely related to ancient mysterious sites such as Giza, and my conclusions are as follows.
The reason why you have encountered so much resistance from the media is simply because by offering the alternate theory (mainly the Atlantis/earth crust displacement theory) and writing books about it, you assault the very essence of some of today's secret organizations. For instance, it has been proven that such things as secret governments and global conspiracies exist, and it has been proven that some people who know too much are silenced. Authors such as Richard Hoagland and Zecharia Sitchin, who are extremely straight-forward, have been the victims of anonymous attackers who must have had their orders.
By questioning the existence and nature of ancient monuments and writings, such as the Giza Pyramids and the Dead Sea Scrolls, any scholar is forced to go back in human history to the time when "gods" literally populated the Earth. These gods were not metaphysical or extraterrestrial: they simply had a technological edge.
For months now, I have been exchanging forum postings with visitors of my website, and it has become clear to me that our ancestors had had contacts with an advanced race. The more back you go in ancient historical records, the more humanlike these gods appear; and the most recent the writing, the more metaphysical and omnipotent they appear. The only logical conclusion is that these gods were most humanlike, but thousands of years of mouth-to-ear folklore converted these gods into omnipotent and omniscient beings. As an example, we could read some extremely old Mesoamerican records who speak about Quetzalcoatl being an ordinary man, teaching the locals about mathematics and the calendar... but more recent records speak of him as a feathered snake, which he wasn't.
By writing controversial books about the origins of mankind, you threaten the authority of the Church and of secret governments; organisms that have as a main purpose to hide the truth away from us. If we were to discover that today's religions all have a common source and have been exploiting mankind all those years, it would provoke an economic and social crisis which would mean a certain end for some important organizations and highly placed persons. But sooner or later, the Truth will be known, and perhaps the elite wants us to know it gradually, not violently.
(By the way, I do still think the Draco constellation is drawn there at Angkor Wat, but the thing is that different people with different religions must have built their temples on the site for many thousands of years. It is therefore only logical that the layout of the site could have been rearranged inadvertedly by the local inhabitants over the millennia. Anyone who criticises you about the Draco constellation theory should think about this first.)
Great work Mr. Hancock,
Subject: Surprised and disappointed
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 1999 23:51:17 +0100
From: "Marc van Buren" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
I just read the complete letter from you to the BBC on The Noise Room. I didn't see the Horizon show. I knew it was on, but I got the date wrong, so I missed it. So I started surfing the web to find out what had happened. I was surprised and disappointed. I too regarded the BBC highly concerning non-fiction documentaries. This respect is now pretty much gone. I too hoped for a fair and scientific analysis of your theories. Rightly a scandal, as you put it on your website.
That's actually all I had to say. I just wanted too tell you I'm on your side :-) So I won't waste anymore of your time. Just wanted to say to please continue your excellent work. Looking forward to the new book. Now reading Heaven's mirror and loving it.
Marc van Buren
++31 10 4150456
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 12:38:21 EST
Just thought you might like to see the attached letter that I'm sending to the BBC Complaints Department.
Regards Chris Brogan
Dear Mr Steel
Overseas travel prevented me from making a prompt complaint about a BBC programme last month but I still feel sufficiently strongly about the matter to write to you.
I refer to the Horizon programme (4 November, BBC 2, 21.30pm) which focused on Graham Hancock, and his theories on a 'lost civilisation'. Given that several million BBC licence payers buy his books, the programme was bound to attract a high audience. I was looking forward to an honest critique of his theories. If egos were bruised in the process, and my own belief 'system' shown to be built on even more shaky foundations than I first imagined, so be it. The point, after all, is to gain a clearer understanding of our past.
But what a disappointment it was. It turned out to be nothing less than a rather tacky hatchet job wholly unbecoming of the BBC. No doubt those directly on the receiving end of this programme will have detailed point by point to you their grievances. I will give you just two, both of which cast doubts on the intellectual honesty of the programme makers:
(1) We are told that geologists dismiss Hancock's suggestions that the Sphinx is older than 2,500 BC. The impression is given (wrongly) that all geologists take this view. End of story. A vital piece of the 'lost civilisation' theory is dispensed with in a matter of seconds.
Then, later in the programme, geologist Professor Schoch of Boston University steps forward to dismantle Hancock's claim that the under water structures off Japan are man-made. Well, I have no problem with that.
But hold on. Isn't this the very same geology professor who argues that the Sphinx is much older than 2,500 BC and could date back to 10,500 BC. The programme makers knew this, so why was there no mention of this? More to the point, why is his opinion seen to be worthwhile with respect to the underwater structures but not to the Sphinx?
(2) There was discussion in the programme about whether the Giza pyramids were built as a mirror reflection of the Orion belt. It was argued by (I think) an American academic that this was not the case, and that Robert Bauval had 'twisted' the evidence to ensure a correct match. OK, if he believes Bauval has been intellectually dishonest he should say. But why on earth was Bauval not brought on to defend himself against this serious charge? I'm sorry but every journalist worth his salt would have ensured that the public heard the 'defence' point of view direct from the accused. Worse still, I'm told there was a recorded interview with Bauval, all of which was binned.
The BBC licence fee exists because, despite the odd moan and groan, popular pressure to end it does not. Why? Because the BBC is still seen to stand apart from other channels. BBC Sports coverage (or what is left of it) and drama are two classic examples. Documentaries are another. The high quality of all three provide very good reasons for a Licence Fee.
But I found little evidence of that quality in the Horizon programme, which was a pretty awful departure from the BBC's normally high standards. It does make me wonder just how many other BBC documentaries, on subjects where my knowledge is more limited, have been similarly unprofessional.
I have no problem with a 'take no prisoners' approach to investigative journalism. New ideas should be challenged. I might even say that the Horizon programme did not make 'bad viewing'. But it was dishonest and unfair, particularly to Robert Bauval who was virtually accused of being a charlatan.
Horizon has slipped up badly here. No doubt the programme makers will disagree and stand their ground. But still the BBC has every chance of making amends - and give another fillip to their BBC2 ratings. Why not have a follow-up studio discussion, with Hancock and Bauval et al confronting their detractors?
I would hope that you could reply on this matter. Specifically, I would be grateful if you could respond to the two points I mentioned earlier - the selective use of Professor Schoch and the failure to allow Robert Bauval to respond to what came close to libel.
Christopher Brogan (PhD)
Subject: Horizon programme
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 1999 14:06:20 GMT
From: "Deepak Vohra" <email@example.com>
CC: firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com
Dear Ms Lerner
I am writing to add my voice of protest to the rather underhand way your Horizon team treated the work of Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval in your recent series on "Atlantis". Your selective use of interview material, in addition to some obviously childish attempts to debunk their theories (the Manhattan reference at the end, for example, was, quite frankly, laughable), was - in my view - a startling abuse of broadcasting power by the nation's most respected media institution.
I am particularly upset at your unbalanced and unfair presentation because I have myself done radio broadcasts for BBC World Service Religion since 1991, and would never have expected the BBC to compromise its journalistic integrity in this manner.
I have also seen all this before. In 1994, I headed the marketing effort in the UK for an internationally published book entitled "Forbidden Archeology: The Hidden History of the Human Race" by Michael A. Cremo and Dr. Richard L. Thompson (Torchlight Publishing). The premise of the book is that evolutionary prejudices, deeply held by powerful groups of scientists, have acted as what the authors call a "knowledge filter", which has left us with a radically incomplete set of facts for building our ideas about human origins. As a startling assault on modern science's dominant views of human origins and antiquity, the book was not surprisingly pilloried by some sections of the scientific establishment.
Fortunately, however, others were prepared to open their minds to the anomalous archaeological evidence presented in the book, and Cremo was invited to present his findings at the World Archaeological Congress in New Delhi a few years ago.
In fact, so compelling were the authors' findings that NBC television in the US broadcast an hour-long documentary entitled "The Mysterious Origins of Man", hosted by none other than Charlton Heston. The treatment given to the authors was fair and balanced.
In startling contrast, it seems that your Horizon production team was launching some kind of vendetta against Messrs. Hancock and Bauval. The method of selective quoting and editing is akin to the application of the knowledge filter described above and is very dangerous for the pursuit of truth - the very definition of the word 'science'.
In conclusion, I would like to quote from the recollections of Canadian anthropologist Thomas E. Lee. I believe certain parallels between the situation he desribes, and that of Messrs. Hancock and Bauval at the hands of the BBC, can be drawn:
"The site's discoverer was hounded from his Civil Service position into prolonged unemployment; publication outlets were cut off; the evidence was misrepresented by several prominent authors among the Brahmins; the tons of artefacts vanished into storage bins of the National Museum of Canada; for refusing to fire the discoverer, the Director of the National Museum (Dr. Jacques Rousseau), who had proposed having a monograph on the site published, was himself fired and driven into exile; official positions of prestige and power were exercised in an effort to gain control over just six Sheguiandah specimens that had not gone undercover; and the site has been turned into a tourist resort. All of this, without the profession, in four long years, bothering to take a look, when there was still time to look. Sheguiandah would have forced embarrassing admissions that the Brahmins did not know everything. It would have forced the re-writing of almost every book in the business. It had to be killed. It was killed." - Canadian anthropologist Thomas E. Lee
My humble suggestion is that you consider allowing Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval the opportunity to present their views as they are, not as the BBC would like them to be.
Subject: Horizon "Stitch-Up"
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 23:06:17 +0800
From: "Phil Beale" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Hang on a minute - wasn't it Horizon (or at least the BBC) who made the documentary a few years ago telling us how wonderful Robert Bauval's discovery of the Pyramids/Orion correlation was...?
Subject: Measurement Correlation for Giza/Orion
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 23:03:03 +0800
From: "Phil Beale" <email@example.com>
I'm a firm believer in the Giza/Orion correlation and it seems to me we might be able to back up the correlation with some more measurements. Surely someone should compare the actual proportional distances between the three pyramids at Giza with the three Orion belt-stars? The same should be done with the angles of offset of the third (smaller) pyramid and the third and smallest of the three stars.
And what about the size of each pyramid compared to the brightness (apparent or otherwise) of the stars. It seems obvious to me that the pyramid builders were trying to represent the fact that the 3rd (offset) star is less bright. If there's actually a numerical correlation as well as a symbolic one then that would give us an even stronger case.
I would do it but I don't have a star atlas or an accurate groundplan map of the Giza pyramids - but I bet someone out there does...? If it's not a precise fit this doesn't necessarily detract from the correlation - it could just mean the builders were only being symbolic. However if it is an accurate fit...well that would be WAY too much of a coincidence for me.
Subject: Fwd: Horizon
Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 23:41:58 +0000
From: Simon Banton <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Just thought you'd like sight of this reply from Fraser Steel, where I reiterated my original email to the Horizon lot (inc. below Mr Steel's reply).
From: Fraser Steel
Dear Mr Banton
Thank you for the copy of your e-mail to Bettina Lerner and others. Graham Hancock has now formally complained to the Broadcasting Standards Commission about his treatment in Horizon, and I understand from him that Robert Bauval also intends to do so. As I am responsible for the BBC's representations to the Commission, and as the Commission requires that its proceedings be confidential, I am afraid I am unable to comment on the points you make, beyond saying that our representation to the Commission will be the result of a full investigation of the issues which Mr Hancock and others have raised with me.
-- original email to Mr Steel --
I am forwarding you this email, as I have not yet had a satisfactory reply from the original recipients, and I understand you are the Head of Programme Complaints at the BBC.
I'd appreciate your comments.
To: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com. firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
To: Horizon, Points of View and named individuals...
As an astrophysicist by education, an Egyptologist by inclination, and having been involved in the research of various theories that parallel Hancock, Bauval and others' work for some time, I would like to say that I am deeply saddened that Horizon (a program I have watched and trusted for many years) has treated this subject in a very unbalanced fashion in its most recent program 'Atlantis Reborn'.
Dr. Robert Schoch, the geologist who denied the underwater evidence is also the geologist who supports water-weathering of the Sphinx enclosure. In 1991, at the American Association for the Advancement of Science's annual conference in Chicago, Schoch presented his data, along with the most conservative conclusions to be drawn from it: Schoch admitted that the evidence inclined him to believe a date of 12-13Ka BP was probable for its carving.
Why was Schoch (a noted expert in this particular area of water-erosion) not quoted in the weathering section?
KEN FEDER: When you have the, the, the archaeological record, when you have the radiocarbon dating for places like Tiwanaku it shows how old the site is. When you insist on ignoring that, not even rejecting it, just ignoring it, it shows that what you are doing is not science, can't be science and that your, your understanding of the past is in fact based on faith. It's a belief system, it's not science.
Repeated reference to radio-carbon dating was made, but RCD cannot date stone - only organic material, and then only accurately if the level of C-14 production is assumed to have been constant throughout time (an argument about this has been raging for years). Differing incidence of high energy cosmic rays at various stages in Earth's past can seriously distort the estimates - and the process itself is only accurate to circa 40Ka BP, with huge error margins. Tektites (glass-like bits of rock) which have been dated at about 700,000 years on the basis of potassium-argon dating and stratigraphic studies, were found to be only 4830 to 5700 years old according to radiocarbon dating of accompanying charcoal. When you ignore _these_ facts, you are exhibiting 'faith' in a demonstrably flawed dating methodology. The key features for solar alignment at Tiuhuanaco (involved in its dating to c13Ka BP) were not removed by the Spanish, viz. the Temple/Gateway of the Sun and the enclosure corners.
Ed Krupps' assertion that Giza is inverted with respect to the Orion/Osiris alignment was flawed. If you stand at Giza, facing South, and watch Orion culminate (ie reach highest point in the sky at your meridian), then the pattern is as follows (fixed width font required):
x . . X . . . . . . . . ' . . X Mintaka . .<MWay X AlNilan . . AlNitak . . . . . . X . . X . . . . South -------------------^------------------ horizon [ ] | [ ] [ ]<Nile /\ /\ [ ] /\ / \ Menkaure [ ] / \Khafre [ ] Khufu [ ] | v North
... to allow Krupp's alignment (n-N, s-S), you'd have to imagine the celestial sphere being shrunk to just encompass the Earth, which would result in Orion being transcribed to the ground as a mirror image. As it is, you can see the sky and the ground echoing each other. Also, the angles you quoted were incorrect - the angle between meridian NS and the apex of Khufu and that of Khafre is close to 45 deg. Between AlNitak and AlNilan and the apparent celestial meridian it varies according to position in the precessional 'Great Year' (c25920 years). So it is perfectly possible to get any angle you want (within the limit of the 23.5 degree radius extremes of the circle of precession). You get 45 degrees in the timeframe indicated by Bauval/Gilbert's hypothesis for the 'sp tpi' ('First Time'). I think you actually used one angle and its complement in the program, which is just wrong.
I could go on... failure to point out that it is serpent symbolism, not dragon that it prevalent in the Khmer mythology, negating the 'there's no Dragon in Khmer symbolism' criticism, no reference to the 15th Century Piri Re'is map of Antarctica (or the Oronteus Fineas map) showing accurate landform outline below the ice sheet, no treatment of Greenland ice core data indicating massive volcanic activity c. 13Ka BP, no mention of Queen Maud land sea bed core sample data indicating water-deposited fine sediment off the continent in the correct timeframe (showing Antarctia was free from ice at least at a large coastal margin), no mention of standing stones off Carnac in France which march out under the Channel from the land (meaning they were put there before the Channel flooded - c 13Ka BP), no explanation that the 'True (World) Ocean' (which is what Plato actually wrote, not 'The Atlantic') is centred on Antarctica, no investigation of the serpent crypt imagery at Dendera, no taking into account the large proper motions of the stars of Draco (which provide a better correlation to Angkor once applied), no mention of the star-shaft alignments from the King/Queens chambers in Khufu pyramid (which point respectively at the Pole star in 2540 BC (Thuban, alpha Draconis), Sirius (Isis), Kochab (beta Ursa Minoris) and AlNitak (Khufu/Osiris)...
I write this in the knowledge that it will do no good, Horizon seems to have departed from its original high quality analysis approach in favour of an ad hominem attack on Hancock personally, for reasons I cannot fathom. The damage has been done, and the people the BBC is supposed to inform impartially have been given a highly distorted picture of the state of current research into the fascinating subject of the origins and history of civilisation.
No doubt the response will be that there was 'no time' to deeply investigate all avenues. Typical of the 'pop-science' attitude that Horizon has displayed recently. There should always be time to check your facts and present a truly balanced view, and there should be no time where it is valid to misrepresent contributors - I'm willing to bet some serious editing was used to pick Hancock apart with his own words.
It does you no credit to produce programming such as this, and I wish there was a way you could be compelled to balance the bias that has been shown.
Subject: Intellectual Auto-Da-Fe
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 11:24:51 +0200
From: "Joe Oppenheim" <JOppenheim@investec.co.za>
CC: <email@example.com>, <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Info Info" <Info.JHBPO7.JHBDOM1@investec.co.za>, <ABSA1.ABMR400@MEMO.ABSA.CO.ZA>, <Graposo@scape.co.za>, <Carlur@yebo.co.za>
I am looking for a response to the article published on the web site of Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval:
I have read this article and have viewed the 'documentaries'. As from what I have seen, read and heard of these two authors, they do not come across as being loud-mouthed and antagonisingly-critising of what people say and believe. The structure of almost all of their work seems to come across as 'make-up your own mind' and they often strive to provide what ever information they have relating to any associated topic, even if it is contradicting to certain beliefs of theirs.
I could not agree with these two authors more when reading this publication, and their personalities seem to backup my argument, as I have met both authors in person.
Do you disagree with their accusations of an 'Intellectual Auto-Da-Fe'?
If so, I would like to hear it, as I think the world and the majority of its people need not be taken on any more hand-held (and I hate to say it) Brainwashes!
Subject: E-mail correspondence to BBC Horizon - Richard Fusniak
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 07:33:55 -0500 (EST)
From: Richard [SMTP:email@example.com]
Sent: Thursday, December 09, 1999 3:06 PM
Subject: Horizon - Graham Hancock
I am very dissapointed at the way Horizon rubbished Graham Hancock on it's recent programmes. Having admired Horizon for several years, one of my favourite TV slots, I think it would be fair to do a third impartial programme outling more of Mr Hancock's work.
I am wondering about the quality of future programmes and the accuracy of future presentations.
By the way, is Horizon repeated during the week or on other dates?
Dear Mr Fusniak
Thank you for the comments you sent to Bettina Lerner, Series Editor of Horizon, about the film "Atlantis Reborn". Please note that the appropriate address for all comments on programmes is firstname.lastname@example.org - messages received there are answered immediately.
As to the issues raised in your e-mail, Horizon stands by the programme that was transmitted. However it is the BBC's policy to take seriously all complaints that are made concerning its productions, and so Horizon has passed Mr Hancock's formal letter to the unit which is charged with independently investigating such matters. In fairness to Mr Hancock we do not feel that it is appropriate to comment any further until their enquiries are complete.
In response to your other question, I am afraid that the Horizon episodes are transmitted only once on BBC2, except on rare occasions when we decide to repeat one of the programmes at a much later date (no earlier than 4 months later).
My response sent 15 Dec 1999
Reference my earlier complaint to the Deputy Editor about the bad way Graham Hancock and Bauval were treated on the recent Horizon programmes, when will the complaint tribunal reach it's findings?
In view of the overwhelming responses indicating that your researchers did not present the programme fairly and in a scientific manner, it would seem that an early conclusion would be appropriate. When will the public see the results from your complaints board?
Subject: Help - Horizon Part 2 recorded?
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 07:42:03 -0500 (EST)
I would be grateful if you could stick this amongst the next lot of e-mails published:
Is there anyone in Cambridge City area who has the Part 2 Horizon programme recorded? I missed a large chunk out of it.
Tel 01223 511521
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 1999 14:00:23 -0000
From: Niel Bushnell <email@example.com>
To: "'firstname.lastname@example.org'" <email@example.com>
Don't let Horizon get to you, the truth will out.
Subject: Have you emailed Watchdog and Points of View ?
Date: Fri, 17 Dec 1999 16:19:46 -0000
From: "Atlantis" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Might I suggest that you email BBC Watchdog and Points of View, about the claims of Horizon distorting the truth and wasting TV licence money.
From: "Christophe Leijnen" <email@example.com>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 1999 09:50:16 PST
Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
Dear Mr. Hancock
After having seen the Horizon documentary I indeed was puzzled by the absence of your arguments stated in your books. After reading your reply to Horizon I know begin to suspect that what Horizon tried to do was to dishonour your theory of lost civilisations. Indeed I do believe in a lost civilisation, not only because of your work but also that of Erich Von Daniken. Some arguments may be wrong but overall there is such an enormous case for this theory! Unfortunately it will be very difficult for other people to see this since the media are obviously not in your favor. But together with others like Von Daniken (although you may not agree on certain issues, you both conclude that something in our past is NOT as it is told to us) it must surely be possible to do something about that? The Horizon program made a fool of everyone who believes in a lost civilisation.
ps: keep up the search. I want to know what our real past is.
Subject: BBC Horizon programmes
Date: Wed, 22 Dec 1999 01:50:54 -0000
From: "Andrew Cartwright" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
You don't know me but I have seen your television series on Channel 4 and read a little of one of your books. To my mind you are an open minded and imaginative person. I was very angry when I saw the Horizon programmes (the second only today on tape). Whilst watching the second Horizon programme I got the feeling that the BBC decided to debunk your work simply because the successful series of programmes which you made were broadcast on a competing channel (Channel 4). There seem to be many examples of the BBC losing important programmes (especially sport) to competing channels and I suspect that they feel bitter about increasingly being seen as second best.
Incidentally, when it comes to imaginative theories I'm usually something of a sceptic and I rather suspect that, through watching your programmes, I will come to see that I could have made a greater success of my life so far (I'm 45) had I been less sceptical and more open minded.
Subject: Continental drift, dinosaurs and comets, etc.
Date: Thu, 23 Dec 1999 22:57:58 -0600
From: "Ray Campbell" <Ray@zZounds.com>
Let me be clear -- to the extent that I have read your stuff, I think you are very interesting but quite possibly totally wacko. I'm not remotely a believer in any of your theories.
At the same time, by way of perverse encouragement I did want to toss out some more examples of cases where the scientific community savaged people with novel ideas, only in some cases to do an abrupt about face. Even 40 years ago, the notion of continental drift was considered nuts. The guys who took maps of Africa and South America and juxtaposed them to show that once they might have been joined together were laughed out of the room. They obviously were just nut cases driven by Atlantaean delusions. Check out some older geology texts -- it's all there. And so it was, until the data mounted to the point where people had to take continental drift seriously.
Ditto with dinosaur extinction. The notion that some cataclysmic event caused a wave of extinction was assumed to be apocalyptic nuttiness -- until a respected scientist was able to demonstrate through analysis of residue in the geologic strata that a comet did hit the earth at a time roughly contemporaneous with one of the great waves of extinction.
Of course, then there are the phrenologists, who were considered wacko quacks and still are.
Ideas that are contrary to the dogma of the time feel nutty. In some cases, they really are nutty; in other cases, they are just ahead of their times. I don't know whether you will end up with the phrenologists or the guys who were open minded about continental drift. Either way, don't let the bastards get you down.
Dedicated Servers and Cloud Servers by Gigenet. Invert Colour Scheme / Default