Mysteries :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
I am hereby announcing the retirement of CSICOP.

CSICOPs aims were to:

generate debate
provoke reactions
question Hancock theory
wind up Bill
get banned from GH website

CSICOP considers 4/5 not bad (better than 1/10 - joke Graham:-)

Graham (and a lot of you) don't seem to appreciate CSICOPs continued participation here so perhaps it is time to go before I do get banned. Although I hope that Graham appreciates that CSICOPs presence has revealed a number of right wing extremist views within his readership.

Graham - you continually remind us that you are neither a scientist nor a historian but only a writer. So why do you write about history and use irrational science to develope your theory within your books?

You invite debate on your work but when asked a direct question you refuse to give a direct answer. Examples:

What is Prof. Robert Schochs opinion of earth crust displacement theory?
Why does Prof. Schoch suggest the Sphinx dates to 5-7000BC yet you claim 10,500BC?
Do you still believe Atlantis is Antarctica?
If so why is your new book titled 'Underworld' rather than Antarctica?

If you were a politician by now Paxman would undoubtedly have said 'answer the f@@@ing question'.

You flatly refused to provide evidence of the Giza-Orion correlation theory on your website. Dr E. was not asking for you to publish the complete transcript of 'The Orion Mystery' only to display your evidence. If you really are so proud of the correlation and if it really is that convincing I would have thought you would take every opportunity to display the genuine data for everybody to see.

In FOTG you draw numerous conclusions from the Giza-Orion correlation theory yet you have decided not to display any accurate scientific figures in your book. Is that science or pseudoscience?

You then claim that your readers should read 'the Orion mystery' if they want to view the actual data. If it is such an important piece of evidence you should have been able to find enough room in FOTG to inform your readers shouldn't you?

To me this indicates that you are more interested in booksales than in scientific progress. Is that the case?

I find my argument with Bill to be directly relevant to your heated debate with Garrett. Do you agree with Bill regarding evolution theory? Bill has decided to completely ignore a whole discipline of science just so that he can maintain his belief that every written word in the bible is true. Is Bill using rational scientific reasoning or religious belief to form his opinion?

In your case you have decided to ignore all the genuine scientific evidence obtained by trained professionals (Egyptologists/archaeologists) so that you can continue to believe in a lost civilisation. Are your arguments based on scientific reasoning or faith that your instincts are correct?

If you agree that your reasoning is based in faith then please desist from claiming that you have 'evidence' when you clearly have none.

I suggest that you are incapable of conducting a valid argument when confronted. Garrett has systematically torn apart your objection to C14 dating yet you are under the mistaken belief that you can win an argument by having the last word. Whenever confronted with a valid argument based on genuine scientific evidence you resort to mudslinging or you avoid the issue and develope some kind of weaker counter argument.

Wake up smell the coffee Graham you are a fraud.

D

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
CSICOP retires 199 CSICOP 29-Nov-00 12:15
RE: CSICOP retires 91 Fuzzy 29-Nov-00 13:45
RE: CSICOP retires 123 Garrett Fagan 29-Nov-00 14:27
RE: CSICOP retires 95 Mark 29-Nov-00 15:15
RE: CSICOP retires 108 Brian A 29-Nov-00 18:19
RE: CSICOP retires 93 Sky 29-Nov-00 15:15
RE: CSICOP retires 95 Brian A 29-Nov-00 18:25
RE: CSICOP retires 169 laura 29-Nov-00 18:47
RE: CSICOP retires 140 Margaret 29-Nov-00 23:10
RE: CSICOP retires 110 Geoff Stocks 30-Nov-00 01:20
RE: CSICOP retires 112 Graham Hancock 29-Nov-00 15:27
RE: CSICOP retires 117 Graham Hancock 29-Nov-00 15:29
RE: CSICOP retires 95 Gav 29-Nov-00 17:01
RE: CSICOP retires 106 Dr E 29-Nov-00 17:54
RE: CSICOP retires 113 Julia 30-Nov-00 04:40
RE: CSICOP retires 126 Dr E 30-Nov-00 10:51
CSICOP stalking 126 Fuzzy 30-Nov-00 11:08
RE: CSICOP stalking 100 Geoff Stocks 30-Nov-00 20:26
RE: CSICOP retires 121 Michael 29-Nov-00 16:24
RE: CSICOP retires 137 Robert G. Bauval 29-Nov-00 19:48
RE: CSICOP retires 125 Geoff Stocks 30-Nov-00 01:31
RE: CSICOP retires 126 Dr E 30-Nov-00 10:19
RE: CSICOP retires 81 Vince 01-Dec-00 02:03


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.