"A feature about the origins od civilisation, and a documentary about a padephile: on the surface there wasn't a lot to connect Channel 4's Flooded Kingdom of the Ice Age, and The Double Life of Jonathan King. But both were deeply depressing, and oddly for the same reasons."
I recall that when the BBC Horizon 'Atlantis Reborn' programme came out in November 1999, I pointed out that at least two senior members of CSICOP, the self-appointed Paradigm Police that makes it its task to debunk anything they deem to be ''pseudo-science' and detrimental to the 'uneducated public' ( or 'ignorant masses', as one Ma'at regular recently refered to the public), had infiltrated the making of the programme at the time. And although the BBC vehemently denied any collusion with CSICOP, they could not explain why, out of the thousands of academics available, they had only chosen to bring in two CSICOP members to criticise Hancock's anf my work. Even more difficult for the BBC was for them to explain why certain debunking techniques typical of CSICOP were used in the attack against Graham Hancock, one such attacks being an attempt to present Hancock as a sort of neo-SS Nazi who might cause another Holocaust.
I also was to discover that one of the CSICOP members who participated in the programme was also a member of CSICOP's so-called Media Integrity Council, a sinister unofficial censoring body whose task is to bring into the CSICOP fold editors of magazines and newspapers and TV that seal with science and factual programmes. These include the journals Nature, The New Scientist, The Scientific American and so on.
Today, in The Independent, a freelance critic, Robert Hanks, has written a disgusting review of Hancock's TV documentary Underworld shown on Channel 4 last night. Hanks duly reminding the readers of the 'excellent Horizon of few years back' that 'thoroughly debunked' Hancock, and went about attempting to present Hancock as a pedophile like Jonathan King. Now if that isn't the craziest of cheap shots so reminiscent of the 'SS Nazi' comparison by Horizon in 1999, then God didn't make those little green apples and it don't rain in Indianapolis in the summer time. To be sure, Robert Hanks is a TV critic, and we all expect him to do precisely that: criticise. Fair enough. But when such irresponsible comments are made in the press, then such criticism become something else altogether more sinister and worrying
Part One of Underworld shown last night was mainly to make three important points (1) that millions of square miles of submerged land was once habitable by humans in prehistory. (2) that there is evidence of possible artificial structures under the sea that are suggestive of an older civilisation (3) that thousands of prehistoric human bones that were found on the island of Malta were 'lost' either through amazing 'incompetence' by the archaeologists. Now there are no 'if and buts' about these three points. They are facts. Yet in a knee-jerking reaction that oozes undiluted bias, Robert Hanks quick accused Hancock of 'one-sided presentation of evidence' and 'blind dogma'... with, of course, the pedophile thingy thrown in the start of his review to help the 'uneducated public' in formulating their perception of Hancock.
Honestly, where do these ''Robert Hanks' jerks come from? Who commissions these 'freelance critics' to write such irresponsible verbiage?