I'm trying to write the best book of my life, right here, right now. An entirely new book which doesn't go over any old ground and with enough "hard" evidence (weigh it, measure it, count it)to satisfy the most hard-nosed empiricists.
At the same time it's important that I defend my position when attacked on this website, particularly with such an obvious smear campaign underway connected to the CSICOP/BBC Horizon agena.
But it would not be wise to allow the time I give to my critics to stop me writing books altogether.
That's why, as a reasonable time-saving alternative to repeating live on this message board the very lengthy debate that Garrett Fagan and I had by email last December/January, I have proposed that we simply publish the entire debate, as it stands, on this site. After that has gone up and visitors have had a chance to review it and form their own opinions, then and only then would it be appropriate to enter into further debate on points not covered or not properly clarified in the original debate.
The debate with Fagan began on 10 November 1999 when he sent me an email, via this site, with an accusation that I am a fraud who should be in jail. By the time we had finished on 14 January 2000) the debate had run to 77 pages of closely printed A4 paper. It is a very comprehensive debate, very thorough, quite readable as you can imagine(I really respect Garrett's abilities as a communicator and a scholar) and covers all the ground that Garrett now seems to want to get into yet another debate with me about -- including, of course, carbon-dating.
Now I know these academic types do have a lot of spare time on their hands, but I don't. As far as I'm concerned I already gave Garrett Fagan a full month of my time for a serious professional debate last December/January and it is that debate that we should now publish.
So I find it difficult to see why my reasonable position over not duplicating effort and wasting time should be regarded by you as a knock-out blow for Garrett Fagan.
Judge that after you've read our debate -- if Garrett Fagan can be persuaded to allow me to publish it here.
All the best, Graham Hancock