(1) CISCOP wrote
I am hereby announcing the retirement of CSICOP.
(1) GH replies:
Thank you Dr Edlin. Your retirement, from anything, is entirely your own business.
(2) CISCOP wrote:
CSICOPs aims were to:
question Hancock theory
wind up Bill
get banned from GH website
(2) GH replies:
Thank you for your contributions to this Message Board. They are welcome. Racism might get you banned. Nazism might get you banned. Being extremely boring might get you banned. Otherwise, I repeat, you are welcome.
(3) CSICOP wrote:
CSICOP considers 4/5 not bad (better than 1/10 - joke Graham:-)
(3) GH replies:
4 objectives achieved out of 5 is indeed not bad, and better than 1 out of 10 as you jokingly summarise the BSC judgement against Horizon. Actually I submitted 8 complaints one of which was fully upheld. Robert Bauval submitted two complaints, one of which was fully upheld. But as I've explained to you before I don't regard this issue as a matter of a score out of 10 or 8 or 2. My only objective in not giving up a year ago but instead deciding to take on the BBC was to ensure that Horizon was exposed in front of the public for the use of unfair methods. I have achieved this objective 100 per cent.
(4) CSICOP wrote
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.
I appreciate your continued participation although I don't particularly enjoy interacting with the way your mind works. Talking to you I feel like I'm dealing with somebody who has already made up his mind about me and is determined to put me down at all costs, in all ways. It's quite a creepy experience, actually. A bit like having a stalker...
(5) CISCOP wrote
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?
(5) GH replies
I will write about whatever I want. Nobody in the world has been forced to buy my books and everybody who has bought them before has the option not to buy them in the future. Fortunately we still live in a society where amateurs are not forbidden to explore and write about subjects that interest them and where freedom of expression on history and science is not confined to historians and scientists.
(6) CISCOP wrote
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?
(6) GH replies:
Prof Robert Schoch does not believe that earth-crust displacement is a geophysical possibility or that such a thing has ever happened in the history, let alone recently. He has expressed this view publicly in his book "Voices of the Rocks". I have never claimed that he has any other view.
If you knew Prof Schoch and his work as well as I do you would quickly realise that he does not in fact date the Sphinx to 5-7000 BC (i.e. to 7000-9000 years ago). His position is that since this was the period of the Neolithic Subpluvial, the last epoch of heavy rains to hit the eastern Sahara, then this is most likely to be when the Sphinx took on its characteristic rainfall-induced weathering profile. But of course this does not mean that the Sphinx had to have been carved DURING the neolithic subpluvial. It might easily have been carved long before 7000-9000 years ago and then later rained on during the Neolithic Subpluvial.
(7) CISCOP wrote:
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?
(7) GH replies
I have answered the question again and again. Our books are seen by far more people than this website and if you want to read the whole substantiating case behind Robert Bauval's Orion correlation theory then you should read The Orion Mystery.
(8) CISCOP wrote
To me this indicates that you are more interested in booksales than in scientific progress. Is that the case?
(8) GH replies
There is no contradiction between the two. I told Dr Edlin before -- at least I think it was him/you -- that the only way to ensure good booksales is to write good books. If my explorations of ancient mysteries are still selling now after so many years of sustained academic abuse then I must be doing something right.
(9) CISCOP WROTE:
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.
(9) GH replies:
First, regarding Bill, I haven't really been following your debate with him. One day I might write a book about the mystery of human origins and if I do I will first learn as much as I can about evolution theory. Right now I'm not interested in getting sucked in to the place where you and Bill are at on this one.
On the other point the precise and explicit purpose of my books is to provide a reasoned alternative to the orthodox academic point of view. However I don't ignore orthodox academic evidence -- most of what I write is based on it -- but do often interpret it differently. Others are not obliged to accept my interpretations, or even be interested in them.
(10) CISCOP wrote:
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.
(10) GH replies
Sorry, but Garrett Fagan has not torn apart my objection to C14 dating. As I keep explaining to you I ALREADY HAVE 77 PAGES OF DEBATE WITH GARRETT ON CARBON-DATING AND MANY OTHER SUBJECTS. My reasonable request is that we publish this first and then see what there is left for us to debate about. But my side of that original debate took up almost a month of my time and I'm not going to put in another month doing exactly the same thing again just because Garrett is reluctant to have his side of our original debate published.
(11) CISCOP WROTE
Wake up smell the coffee Graham you are a fraud.
(11) GH replies:
Dr Edlin that is a very cruel accusation, based on nothing. When you call a person a fraud you are saying that he has engaged in "deliberate deception, trickery or cheating intended to gain an advantage". You should be very sure of yourself before you damn another person in such a sweeping, categorical way otherwise you are simply playing with other peoples lives and feelings like a malicious child.
I'm a writer, first and foremost a writer, and always a writer. And I try to write my truth, sincerely, as I perceive it. No-one, not even you Dr Edlin, can do any more than that.
All the best, Graham