You say all my books are “rot” and “spin”, “rot throughout”, “smoke and mirrors”.
This is a terrible condemnation to heap on another person’s work and I wonder what is making you tick when you say something like that. Why do you go to such lengths to smear and insult everything that I do, every aspect of me, as though I am worthless? Why do you take such obvious pleasure in anything – anything at all – that you can possibly portray as a setback for me?
It seems that you are not here to have any sort of dialogue with me, really, but merely in the hope of doing me harm, at any level, in any way you can.
THE EXAMPLE OF MARIA REICHE
One glaring example of your true motives, and how far you are prepared to distort the truth in order to achieve them, is found in your responses to Sharif over Maria Reiche and the Nazca Lines in my book “Heaven’s Mirror” (page 260ff). You are plainly trying to convince members of this Board that I have misrepresented Maria as a supporter of the Lost Civilisation theory and demand that I post “a clear and unambiguous statement from Maria Reiche that a 12,000-year-old civilisation either built the Nazca lines or inspired their production”.
This is plain dishonest of you Garrett – an empty, rhetorical tactic of exactly the sort you accuse me of. Nowhere in my work do I either claim or imply that Maria Reiche had any views, either positive or negative, about a 12,000 year old civilisation. In Heaven’s Mirror I cite her only to support the view, which she most certainly and passionately supported herself, that the diagrams are astronomical in character and that they incorporate astronomical alignments and some form of astronomical symbolism.
As to the exact context of Maria’s words that I quote in Heaven’s Mirror, Santha and I recall our 1993 encounter with the wonderful old lady of the lines as a magical moment and a sacred privilege that even you, Garrett, with all your spite and energy for cruelty, cannot tarnish in our memories.
We were ushered into her permanent room in the same government hotel in which we were staying by her sister Renata. We found Maria lucid, open-minded and interested. The whole encounter is described on page 261 of Heaven’s Mirror.
A note that I wrote on the inside front cover of Maria’s book “Mystery On The Desert” reads as follows: 12 June 93. Meeting with Maria Reiche. Write to her sister Renata Reich.
Q. “What do we in the present have to learn from the Nazca Lines?”
A. “They teach us that our whole idea of the peoples of antiquity is wrong – that here in Peru was a civilisation that was advanced, that had an advanced understanding of mathematics and astronomy, and that was a civilisation of artists expressing something unique about the human spirit for future generations to comprehend. Their artistic eye was highly evolved and sophisticated – not primitive at all.”
I did tell Maria that I was writing about the possibility of a lost civilisation, and she said that was very interesting but certainly expressed no endorsement of the idea. That’s why I don’t claim that she endorsed it.
But here’s Maria herself from “Mystery in the Desert”, pages 88-89. She describes Nazca as a place where “great cultural documents of a highly evolved bygone civilisation are to be preserved” and then adds: “Although there could be different opinions about the Nazca drawings and their meaning, one thing is certain, and that is that the figures give evidence of the fact that the early Peruvians have attained a hitherto unsuspected cultural level. The process of planning and converting one scale into another presupposes a highly developed faculty for abstract thinking, which at least part of the population must have possessed and which we would never expect in a primitive people.”
That’s what she says. Make of it what you will.
Oh and by the way you will find on page 266 of Heaven’s Mirror that I do not challenge the orthodox archaeological date for Nazca of about 2000 years old.
BBC HORIZON AND THE BROADCASTING STANDARDS COMMISSION ADJUDICATION
Despite your constant carping and criticism, I assert again that Robert Bauval and I have most definitely won a victory in the matter of Horizon and we have every right to say so as loudly as we wish in view of what was done to us
Our objective was to demonstrate to the public that BBC Horizon had used unfair methods to produce their vicious and destructive documentary “Atlantis Reborn”. We succeeded 100 per cent in that objective since the BSC adjudication – as you well know -- does find that the BBC were unfair.
You make much of the fact that only one of my eight complaints was upheld and feel it is spin for me to claim victory under such circumstances.
No Garrett, this is not the point at all. Unfairness is unfairness. It can’t be divided, it can’t be multiplied. If a television documentary like Horizon is unfair in any part then it is unfair through and through. As you know it only takes one rotten apple to spoil the whole barrel.
But talk about spin! I’ll tell you about spin.
It was spin of the worst kind for Horizon to resort to editorial subterfuge and unfairness in order to portray Robert Bauval as a fraud and me as a fool and a dissembler over the matter of the Orion correlation. It is moreover a spin that still continues up to this late stage in the proceedings, despite the BSC’s public confirmation that Horizon behaved unfairly over this matter. Robert Bauval has made it extremely clear in his communications that we do not feel it is enough for the BBC merely to reinstate our butchered testimony. It is essential, also, for Horizon to inform the public, and take account in its argument, of the fact that Ed Krupp’s supposedly definitive dismissal of the Orion correlation, which forms the backbone and the conclusion of “Atlantis Reborn” has been rejected outright by senior astronomers here in Britain -- two of whom have in fact offered to be interviewed by Horizon. So far, to our knowledge, the BBC have not taken up these offers and have no plans to interview either astronomer.
I’m taking the liberty of quoting from a letter that Robert Bauval recently sent to Ed Krupp following the latter’s refusal to press the BBC to include one or other of the astronomers to rebut Krupp in their rebroadcast of Atlantis Reborn. “The matter ended”, Bauval reminds Krupp, “with an ‘unfair’ adjudication from the Broadcasting Standards Commission, and now everyone --and surely also yourself as an unbiased academic-- want to see fairness done. I am, therefore, much dismayed that you will not support my motion to have a reputable British astronomer give a counterview to you comments on the new BBC Horizon Atlantis Reborn.
”Furthermore, how can you keep on insisting that the orientation southwards
regarding the Giza-Orion's belt correlation is "fallacious" considering that
it has received full support in writing from at least three very senior
astronomers (not to mention many other professionals and a very wide general
public) who have dismissed your "Upside down" argument as unfounded, wrong,
invalid and unfair?
”Knowing of this (I could email you their written rebuttals if you wish), is
it possible that you feel that only your view should be heard in the BBC
programme? Would it not be scientific --let alone fair play-- to support my
motion to have another astronomer voice his views?”
Yours, Facing South
I believe that Bauval’s letter raises a central point of conscience for Ed Krupp and also for yourself -- Garrett Fagan, Assistant Professor of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies and History at Penn State University.
Unlike Horizon I state openly that I am an advocate of the possibility of a lost civilisation and do not claim to be objective in this matter. Yet you have repeatedly accused me of not offsetting the arguments that I present in my books with proper rebuttals from scholars. Clearly, therefore, you believe it is an important rule of the presentation of evidence, even for me – let alone for Horizon with its reputation for objectivity to maintain – to include rebuttal testimony from legitimate, qualified experts when such testimony exists.
I now ask you to be consistent in your beliefs. Rebuttal testimony to Ed Krupp’s dismissal of the Orion correlation has been offered to the BBC by qualified and respected British astronomers for inclusion in the revised version of “Atlantis Reborn”.
If you are a man who expects his moral voice to be taken seriously in any way in the future then I urge you again as I have done before (so far without result) to PLEASE WRITE TO THE BBC IN YOUR PROFESSIONAL CAPACITY AND URGE THEM TO INCLUDE THE REBUTTAL OF KRUPP BY THE BRITISH ASTRONOMERS IN THEIR DEC 14TH REBROADCAST OF “ATLANTIS REBORN”. There is still time for something to be done so please let me have your decision immediately. And of course if you do decide to write to the BBC supporting our appeal for fairness in the recut I am sure you will not object to us publishing your letter here on this site and also circulating it widely to the press, to academics who were involved in the making of the programme, and to television professionals.
While you’re at it, a man like yourself who preaches so sanctimoniously about my supposed “misrepresentation and misuse of evidence” – or hard words to that effect – must surely be incensed by Horizon’s misrepresentation and misuse of evidence in its presentation of the Orion Correlation in “Atlantis Reborn”. I think it would be consistent with your views to remind the BBC that nowhere in the original version of “Atlantis Reborn” were the British audience of close to 3 million ever informed that in addition to the resemblance of the pattern of the three pyramids at Giza to the pattern of the three stars of Orion’s Belt there is much other coherent evidence supporting Robert Bauval’s Orion Correlation theory .
For example, as I told you a year ago, the primary correlation at Giza between the pyramids and the three stars of Orion’s belt is enormously strengthened by the southern so-called ‘air-shaft’ of the King’s Chamber inside the Great Pyramid which was oriented directly towards the meridian transit of Al Nitak, the lowest of the three stars of Orion’s built and the Great Pyramid’s celestial counterpart in the Orion Correlation. This alignment, it should be noted, occurred in the epoch of 2500 BC – precisely the epoch in which Egyptologists think the Great Pyramid was built. In addition, we have the undisputed association of the god Osiris with the constellation of Orion and passages in the slightly later Pyramid Texts which tell us ‘this pyramid of the king is Osiris, this construction of his is Osiris’.
Since the pyramid is Osiris and Osiris is Orion are we not being invited, by direct association of images, to equate pyramids in some way with Orion? And how big a step is it from here to full acceptance of the Orion Correlation theory?
When you consider that most of the work behind the Orion correlation theory had been done by orthodox Egyptologists and had long been accepted by them, it is really perverse that they have been so hostile to the theory itself and more perverse still that no mention was made by Horizon of the strong Egyptological and astronomical underpinnings of the theory. Step 1, the identification of Osiris with Orion, was entirely worked out by orthodox Egyptologists long before Robert Bauval came along. Step 2, the alignment towards Orion of the southern shaft of the King’s Chamber had also long been accepted by Egyptologists (it was the work of Badawy and Trimble, as I’m sure you know). I am absolutely convinced that if an orthodox Egyptologist rather than Robert Bauval had been the first to take Step 3 -- noticing the strange similarity between the pattern of the three stars of Orion’s belt and the pattern of the three Giza pyramids – then the Orion correlation theory would have been accepted without demur by the majority of the profession. But because the discoverer was an outsider, Egyptologists rallied against him and sought either to sideline or to smear his theory, but not at any point to give it serious consideration.
None of the architectural, Egyptological, astronomical or ancient textual evidence buttressing the Orion correlation theory – and there is much more – was reported at all by your good friends at Horizon. And yet strangely, so far anyway, I haven’t heard a squeak of complaint from you about this.
So please go ahead and complain to the BBC about this also. I expect you to say extremely unpleasant and personal things to them – as you do to me – for their failure to abide by the same rules of evidence that you accuse me of failing to abide by.
Anything else would be hypocrisy.
All the best, Graham
|ROT - Attn Garrett Fagan||543||Graham Hancock||04-Dec-00 04:03|
|RE: What happened peace?||172||Mark||04-Dec-00 09:56|
|RE: What happened peace?||169||Dr E||04-Dec-00 10:54|
|RE: What happened peace?||235||Graham Hancock||04-Dec-00 11:44|
|RE: What happened peace?||183||Dr E||04-Dec-00 12:05|
|RE: What happened peace?||184||Mark||04-Dec-00 11:06|
|RE: What happened peace?||222||Christophe L.||04-Dec-00 12:18|
|RE: What happened peace?||184||Brian A||04-Dec-00 17:02|
|RE: What happened peace?||222||Dr E||04-Dec-00 17:35|
|RE: What happened peace?||186||MArk Chan||04-Dec-00 18:18|
|RE: What happened peace?||206||Rob Gardner||04-Dec-00 20:12|
|RE: What happened peace?||165||Brian A||05-Dec-00 07:50|
|RE: What happened peace?||197||Julia||04-Dec-00 21:38|
|RE: What happened peace?||214||Mark||05-Dec-00 08:24|