Mysteries :  The Official 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 have advised Garrett to withdraw from this forum on the grounds that Graham will use the year old debate, and Garrett's refusal to let it be published, as a weapon against having to face the issues raised in 'Hancock's Challenge'.

Graham, It was your challenge, that you raised, in this forum. Garrett replied, and now you say you need to publish the original debate before advancing further. All this in the full knowledge that Garrett has in the past, maintains in the present and will continue to refuse to let this happen. Perfect conditions in which to deflect attention away from the debate. Reduce it to a single point of reference and move the core of the arguement, not to C-14 dating or any other cogent issue about your work, but to Garrett's refusal to publish. Hey presto, "What is he trying to hide?".

This is a great way to squirm off the hook. And quite simply that is what you are attempting to do. People like Geoff will fail to see this tactic for what it is, but Jameske for one appreciates that this 'Publishing' is not necessary.

I have no knowledge of Garrett's earlier debate with you, and he has gone to great lengths to put his case here and now. The issues seem quite clear cut. Your provarications are nothing but a smokescreen.

I post below my recommendation to Garrett in a recent e-mail to him.

"He has also hit on his strongest, and probaply final line of defence, and that is your refusal to let him publish the e-mail debate you had with him last year. This has turned up like a mantra in all his recent postings. He is 'Spinning' the "I am open Graham, look at closed secretive Academic Orthodox Garrett". You will get no mileage from continuing the debate with him. All your efforts will be countered by the simple arguement "That we have gone over this before. Please let me publish".

And thus it came to pass. Never mind Wayne's world, welcome to Graham's world!!


Options: ReplyQuote

Subject Views Written By Posted
Debate 368 Garrett Fagan 29-Nov-00 22:05
RE: Debate 274 Graham Hancock 30-Nov-00 01:37
RE: Debate 172 Geoff Stocks 30-Nov-00 01:56
RE: Debate 173 jameske 30-Nov-00 03:39
RE: Debate 153 Garrett Fagan 30-Nov-00 04:04
RE: Debate 186 Graham Hancock 30-Nov-00 11:32
RE: Debate 161 Dr E 30-Nov-00 11:52
WEAR SPECTACLES 162 Bryan 30-Nov-00 12:56
RE: WEAR SPECTACLES 155 Sharif 30-Nov-00 13:16
RE: WEAR SPECTACLES 170 Dr E 30-Nov-00 13:59
RE: WEAR SPECTACLES 209 Bryan 30-Nov-00 15:18
RE: WEAR SPECTACLES 146 Dr E 30-Nov-00 18:04
RE: Debate 200 Mark 30-Nov-00 09:57
RE: Debate 131 Geoff Stocks 30-Nov-00 19:54
RE: Debate 156 jameske 30-Nov-00 01:53

Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.