good of you to respond to my letter in what appears to be a good spirit. unfortunately, i cannot respond to your assertions in your most recent letter [here] as i don't have a copy of fingerprints at my disposal. all i can say in that vein at the moment is that i read the chapter in question very carefully and more than once, and in doing so, i seem to recall that the info on piri reis was especially impressive because it seemed to be so well supported by scientists in various disciplines, and this is a very common feature in fingerprints, which is what makes it so compelling.
in fingerprints of the gods we have about 1200 footnotes. there are errors in the work, i've seen a few that are asinine, but that is to be expected in such a voluminous work. however, it's the depth of the research and the widespread support for many of the assertions therein that make this a work that is anything but the sensationalistic crap you appeared to have made it out to be - in the course of characterising mr. hancock as a tabloid journalist.
eyes wide shut, i haven't read any of your other postings, and i'm pleased to note that the same mean-spiritedness is not there in this, your latest. i hope you keep this course in your rebuttals to graham in the future, for the sake of the truth. the cruel speculation on motives does nothing to serve that end, especially in this case.
best wishes, mark
|Eyes Wide Shut . . . slander||406||mark grant||15-Nov-00 01:19|
|RE: Eyes Wide Shut . . . slander||187||Michael||15-Nov-00 09:58|
|RE: Eyes Wide Shut . . . slander||165||Eyeswideshut||17-Nov-00 09:25|
|RE: Eyes Wide Shut . . . slander||161||Michael||17-Nov-00 12:25|
|RE: Eyes Wide Shut . . . slander||210||mark grant||23-Nov-00 02:56|
|RE: Eyes Wide Shut . . . slander||188||Gabrielle||19-Nov-00 20:03|