By the way, I greatly appreciate Mark's input on this point -- and that of others who were unhappy with my challenge to Garrett -- which I find very understandable and have a great deal of sympathy with.
My reply sets out the main reasons why I felt I had to issue this challenge to Garrett.
Author: MArk Chan (---.mcc.wwwcache.ja.net)
Date: 12-06-00 01:50
seriously, I don't think posting something like this would help your cause. As much as I admire and look with interest into your books and study, I don't think your comment about Garret being a coward was very professional. This goes a bit too far. Yes I know you have gone through a lot of personal beratement, but why follow the ways other follow?
Mark, this is not to say that Garret did that to Graham. However, I think I have posted a few questions to Garret where he still has not answered me just yet.
Author: Graham Hancock (---.server.ntl.com)
Date: 12-06-00 10:53
Dear Mark Chan,
Thanks for this and I appreciate your point of view. However I could not stay silent after Garrett had described my life's work as "rot through and through" because of my "methods" and alleged failure to abide by his self-defined "high standards of evidence".
I thought that was enough so I decided to set Garrett a test to see whether he applies the same methods and the same "high standards of evidence" to his friends -- BBC Horizon -- as well as to his enemies.
(1) He accuses me of suppressing evidence contrary to my case. The BBC Horizon documentary suppressed evidence contrary to its case against me and Robert Bauval by not telling the audience sicentifically-accepted facts that back up the Orion correlation -- eg. the fact that the southern shaft of the King's Chamber in the Great Pyramid pointed to Orion's Belt in the Pyramid Age, or the fact that Osiris, lord of rebirth, was identified by the ancient Egyptians with the constellation Orion. If Garrett Fagan is consistent and attacks me on principle, rather than for personal reasons, then he must condemn the BBC for this blatant suppression of contrary evidence.
(2) He accuses me of not referring to expert witnesses who contradict my case. The BBC Horizon team have refused to interview two very senior British astronomers who absolutely rebut Ed Krupp's rejection of the astronomical validity of the Orion correlation. If Garrett Fagan is consistent and attacks me on principle, rather than for personal reasons, then he must condemn the BBC for this blatant suppression of expert testimony that contradicts their case.
Last but not least, please note that I did NOT accuse Garrett Fagan of cowardice. I ASKED if he was a coward, which is very different.
Because of Garrett Fagan's deep involvement with and commitment to mainstream academic orthodoxy it will take courage -- the courage of his convictions -- for Garrett to attack the BBC and Ed Krupp for their dishonest and manipulative presentation of the evidence and witnesses relevant to the Orion correlation. But at least it will prove that he is consistent and a man of principle.
So Garrett can take a simple, honest, honourable action -- writing publicly to the BBC protesting about their behaviour over the Orion correlation -- and we will all know that he is not a coward.
The answer lies entirely in his own hands, not mine.
Hope this makes sense. I personally have been repulsed by the vile nature of the debate I have had to have with Fagan. I used to appreciate his sharp intellect and did think of him as a man of principle. Now I'm not sure, but I await his answer to my challenge before deciding finally whether or not he is worth any more of my time.