BBC Horizon: Atlantis Uncovered and Altantis Reborn, 28 October & 4 November 1999

Comments About Episode 2

Subject: Wait until all the evidence is in.
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 23:11:28 -0000
From: "Ken Ledger" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>


First may I say that I have an enormous interest in all the work that has been done to research the possibility of a lost civilisation and after having seen your TV documentaries and read your books I was delighted that someone might have finally found a possible answer.

What disturbs me most is that the theories put forward by yourself seemed to have gathered such a wealth of popular approval that any attempt to verify it’s validity is met with scorn and ridicule. I have read through the many email replies that followed after the first Horizon programme and found myself amazed at some of the comments considering it was a two part programme and there was still more to come. Many of the emails ridicule it for not disputing the astronomical evidence you put forward yet here it is, for all to see in the second programme. The very basis of many of your theories, it originally seemed, was the astounding accuracy of the position of man made-structures in relation to the stars in the heavens yet from the programme tonight, it seems that even this very cornerstone is based on evidence which is not completely accurate. On the subject of Draco, for instance, you said that it was never meant to be a precise match, but I thought the whole idea of yours originally stemmed from such uncannily accurate matches and that further investigation was warranted. Furthermore, when the map of the rest of the Vietnamese temples was overlaid, it was possible to see that practically any pattern imaginable could probably be found with the same degree of accuracy. And as for the match between the pyramids and Orion’s Belt being 180 degrees out? You have admit that it does lose the argument a lot of credibility.

Please don’t misunderstand, I think your work has been incredible in at least opening minds to the possibility that orthodox history might not be all there really is, but I also think that any theory published in a public forum should be able to withstand scrutiny from whatever direction it may come. The BBC may have it’s fingers in many pies, be they political or ideological, but one thing is for sure; when it comes to matters such as these, it rarely says anything aloud unless it has done it’s research both thoroughly and accurately.

If anyone wants to email me back with their take on this, I’d be most grateful (especially you Graham), as I am now scouring everything I can find to search for more evidence either way!

Thank you for allowing me my say,
Ken Ledger.

Subject: Interesting
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 23:21:37 -0000
From: "Sky Wickenden" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>


Well,well,well. I’ve just finished watching the second Horizon program; the first I think we established was complete trash. The second despite still being a hatchet job at least aired the establishment’s efforts at a comeback. Lots of valid points were raised…. whose maps are wrong? Can you come back on the ‘evidence’. The star map theory certainly begins to look a bit shaky, but other established evidence still sounded dodgy … the sphinx weathering was not explained well enough, how come the head is less weathered than the body if it was not recarved. Carbon dating missused again… still no real evidence as to why the pyramids were built, and wait a minute but have been asleep, when was it decided that we knew how the pyramids were built never mind when, they still weigh however many millions of tons and would require a level of organisation as yet unheared of. And yes although we could now lift the heaviest temple blocks into place, a culture without cranes, never mind pullies would not be able to shift these blocks against gravity. I think its time to put our own theories aside for a bit and concentrate on pointing out the anomalies in the established theory. As you may have noticed the establishment likes to nit pick, better start cleaning ourselves before they wipe us down to the floor. I truely hope Graham can make a genuine comeback, I don’t want to have to wait another twenty years before the next ‘crackpot’ comes up with a new theory.

Best of luck


Subject: Faith Stays
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 23:22:29 -0000
From: "Emma Holmwood" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>

Why do some have to dismiss things when we could be making the greatest discoveries of all time?

Why did Horizon not include the Ancient Maps (inc Piri Reis) showing the terrain of the South Pole, and the ‘physical evidence’ of the frozen mammals in Siberia when discussing Antarctica?

No mention either, of the ‘no bodies/inscriptions’ in the Pyramids? No discussion regarding the star alignments of the key points on the Sphinx including the subterranean chambers?

No mention of the causeway alignments?

The footage of the Japanese Dives shown on ‘The Quest’ series shows far more evidence of man-made structures, no columns on the Horizon footage, no comments either from the respected scholars who do agree?

No mention of the shorelines of Lake Titicaca?

Certainly one of the most biased programmes I have ever seen

Emma Holmwood

Subject: Episode 2: Why did they avoid a real discussion of the Sphinx
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 23:32:31 -0000
From: "Psibermage" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>

Well, It looks as if the second part of Horizon was just another hatchet job. In the first episode we had to endure being compared to Nazis and new-age channelers. Now in this latest instalment we have to sit and watch what does seem, for all intents and purposes, an orchestrated character assassination of Graham (Hancock).

The attempt to deal with the Sphinx was blatant denial and as for Antarctica! Firstly, if you go south from the Falklands or New Zealand the first thing you will notice about Antarctica is that you are walking on land – not a 400ma old ice-sheet. (The next time you watch a show with penguins in look what’s under their feet.) An ice sheet of that age could only be found in the deepest parts of Antarctica – where the mountain ranges are. Geologists should acquire ice samples from Ben Nevis in Scotland or perhaps some of the tall mountains in North America and see how old the ice there is in my opinion. Just because the ice sheet in one location is very old it does not mean that within a few miles people are not living a technologically advanced life. Which we are in Scotland!

Perhaps the Horizon producers should look in their archives for their earlier show about the Sphinx.

All in all I think that this was just the last dying breath of the sceptics.

Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 22:57:29 -0000
From: "Brian Gillbanks" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>

They totally missed the point as usual. Like I said in my e-mail a deliberate attempt to make the orthodox look good. The answer lies off-world.

Brian UK.

Subject: Bending the truth
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 1999 23:12:49 -0000
From: "Roxyc Nolan" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>

I’m at a loss to know how to respond to the program!!! I have found Graham Hancock’s and Robert Bauval’s work (including the many others involved) thoroughly refreshing and offers more rational answers than those provided by science labs. I believe that to really understand these structures, you have to try and visualise their importance and the statement they make, seen from the minds of the builders all those years ago. It seems impossible to do this, but if you consider it rationally, these people didn’t have the same ideas and concepts of the world, that we do today. I strongly believe that our knowledge is fragile and that somehow we have forgotten our history, you only need to look at the state of the world and our civilisations for evidence of that.

The Horizon program seemed to only use the evidence it needed, certain aspects of the arguments for and against, and happily tossing aside key points which didn’t perhaps tie in nicely. This could also speak for the attitudes of other scientists and researchers.

All I can say, is that I wish Graham Hancock and others alike all the support and best wishes possible….one day the questions will be answered, and we will be the ones to say "I told you so."

Lisa Nolan

Subject: BBC’s Horizon part 2
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 11:39:15 MET
From: "R.P.J.H.RUTTEN (BOW)" <[email protected]>
Organization: Tilburg University
To: [email protected]

Dear Graham,

I watched the second part of Horizon’s series on Atlantis last night.

Well, it seems the BBC were determined to slaughter you and they have gone to great lengths to accomplish that. They have even sacrificed their independence. Where in the first part you were only given 30 or so seconds, the orthodoxists, in the second part, were given plenty of time to redicule your work. And the constellation they ‘found’ in Manhatten is a very cheap treat.

Furthermore, the Horizon team placed you in a defensive position throughout the programme and they showed only fragments of your theory. To me this looks like a case of bad journalism.

But maybe you should look at this in a broader perspective. The fact that a conservative and traditional network like the BBC found it necessary to dedicate some time to this radical new point of view is a small victory in its own right.

Best Wishes,
Roel Rutten.
Tilburg, the Netherlands.

Subject: lost civilisation
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 00:19:10 +0000
From: Simon Chandler <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]

Dear Graham,

It gives me no great happiness to admit it, but your theories do seem to have suffered a setback this evening. I thought that the programme made a good case against the mapping of constellations on the ground and threw doubt on the significance of the 10500 BC date.

However the programme conveniently dismissed other arguments you have made by implying that your only pieces of evidence were the ones which it had effectively countered. This is clearly untrue: the universal legends of ‘the flood’, the C15th maps of Antarctica, the use of 200 ton blocks of stone in temples, the enigmas of the great pyramid and the knowledge of precession (to mention a few) all strike at the heart of the modern scientific consensus. Yet although there are tantalising hints of an advanced lost civilisation, these will never be enough to convince the sceptics. Since conventional wisdom is against there ever being a civilisation before the end of the ice age (even though humans like us had already been around for thousands of years at
that time), the chances are that no one has looked properly for evidence of it under the sea. So who knows? You might just make a big find and have the last laugh.

Best wishes,


Subject: horizon – back to the dark ages
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 15:16:17 GMT
From: "Gary F Smith" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]

Dear Graham,

The horizon programme was a shocking trivialisation of the subject. They quite clearly set out to ridicule and discredit your work; by subtle and not so subtle swipes at your character. I had wished for a serious 40 minutes of facts and investigation but it was padded out by shots of waves and a fat American academic bigot whose myopia is only superceded by his bad hair cut.

Truth will prevail; we will never find "Atlantis", because the fragments of the society are but dust, having been wiped out by the last shift of the earth’s crust and resultant volcanic, flood, ecological and primarily economic impact on the human race. The program failed to grasp the point that the human race became virtually extinct after the so-called "ice-age". Also, any rational and thinking person can surmise that we as a species have been around as very clever and organised survivors for considerably more than the 500 generations or so that conventional history tells us. The problem with "academia" is that they regard themselves as "science" but are for the most part small-minded, negative, arrogant, self-seeking individuals. I’m preaching here to the converted of course.

Please don’t be disheartened by the foolish and glib comments; your work is far too important.

Carry On

Gary F Smith

Subject: Horizon: 28/10/99 and 04/11/99
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 01:19:06 -0000
From: "Gary Warburton" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>

Dear Mr Hancock,

I have just watched the Horizon documentary on your work, along with your three-part "Quest for the Lost Civilisation" programme, broadcast on the Discovery Civilisations channel, and must admit I found both programmes entertaining and informative. Each with it’s own perspective and opinions.

I am not writing to criticise the way in which each programme was presented; Horizon, being primarily a journalistic documentary, put forward a good argument for and against your theory within the time allowed by the programme, as did your documentary on the Discovey channel, and after all, I am sure there are just as many people who agree as disagree with your findings. And so, Horizon aimed to appeal to both these groups in order to achieve a greater audience. However, I am sure that the Horizon programmes managed to offend many students of your theory with its view.

One thing we must all remember when confronted with revolutionary new ideas is to keep a very open mind. One example of this open-mindedness would be a programme currently being screened by the BBC entitled "Walking with Dinosaurs". The programme, for the benefit of people who may not have seen it, takes the form of a natural wildlife documentary, in the style of David Attenboroughs "Life on Earth" series. It shows us how creatures that lived 100,000,000 years or more ago, lived, acted, and interacted with each other. It also shows us what colours they were, how they mated, raised young, and is very convincing in its potrayal of life on Earth in this period. Quite a facinating series. The producers took six years to make this programme and I think that they have done an excellent job. But the question is this: How close to the truth are they? Is this really how dinosaurs lived? Is Horizon going to make a programme to de-bunk it. the closed minded answer would be no, the open minded – possibly.

I believe that you have been researching your theory for over ten years now (longer than the BBC speculated on the intimate relations of the dinosaurs) and I can see that you are being intensely criticised by closed minded people.

I believe that it is very possible that the rise of our current civilisation was propigated by the rise of another, earlier one. It would explain many ancient beliefs and myths, of which I will not go into here, suffice to say that the myth of the flood pervades every ancient culture, from the American Indians to the Bible text, Greek mythology and beyond. It would be very ignorant of us to pass these texts off as mere storytelling. The fact that it is repeated so many times by so many different cultures, at different times in mankinds history must lead us to believe that the tales must have some significant truth attached to them. It is only the fact that modern society has taught us that these tales are just tales, that makes it hard for us to accept them as a true historical record.

The story of the flood can be explained away (briefly) as cultures living by rivers (apparently where civilisations developed) experiencing seasonal rises of water levels, e.g. the Nile. But, would this regular occurence make for such an Earth shattering myth. I think not.

Mankind has been intelligent for many thousands of years. He was quite capable of building the Pyramids and other ancient sites without any "secret" knowledge or help from E.T. 4000+ years ago and construction engineers of the 20th century, given enough money and incentive (or perhaps just money!) could quite easily construct a pyramid, more intricate than the ones at Giza. We have always had the ability, its just that now we have accumulated more knowledege and believe that ancient man was inferior. Please take this analogy as an example of our knowledge compared to ancient man’s:

A young man buys a book and begins reading it. This man manages to read the first four chapters before he dies. Just before the man dies, he tells his grandson the story contained in the first four chapters. He cannot recite these chapters word for word, and some small parts are left out. The grandson then continues to read from chapter four and manages to reach chapter 12 before
the end of his life. Again, he passes on the knowledge of the first 12 chapters to his grandson, but cannot recite them word for word and loses some of the story in the retelling. The third man continues reading from chapter 12 and finishes the book. He now knows the complete story, but is vague about the first four chapters and only knows the better part of the story up to chapter 12.

Does this mean that the third man is more intelligent than the first or second, because he has a greater knowledge of the story? No. Each man had the intelligence to be able to read the book in the first place, and without the knowledge of his predecessor, neither the second or third man would have been able to complete the book! By starting again from chapter 1 they would never have lived long enough to finish the story, and therefore, would never have advanced in knowledge.

The lost civilisation, I believe, existed in those vague, initial chapters of mankinds history. They were no more or less intelligent than mankind today, had the same dreams and goals, and in the face of impending disaster, managed to survive to teach others what they had learned. And now, as we look back at the clues they left to their existance, we are faced with the scepticism of those that bought a different book.

Congratulations on your work. Dont give up

All the best

Gary Warburton

Subject: Atlantis
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 09:28:27 +0100
From: JOHN SLEGERS <[email protected]>
Organization: K.U.Leuven
To: [email protected]

Yesterday, I saw a program on BBC about Atlantis, or actually about the theories of Mister Hancock. I had heard of him before, and I have always been a "believer". Unfortunately, after this show, I started doubting, because he keeps seeing constellations in building patterns, where there aren’t any. And he keeps saying that the pyramids of Giza are really 5000 years old, while he says that it points to a date of 10500 B.C. Can’t it be that the pyramids themselves ís 12500 years old, and that the few inscriptions found, are of a more recent date, and that the graves found around the mummies are of the servants of the Pharaohs that have been put there later, when the Pharaohs died who were put in the then already ancient pyramids. I haven’t got more time to write, so please reply.

Subject: Horizon 2
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 09:00:51 +0000
From: Simon Whitfield <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]

Dear Graham,

Although the producers of the Horizon program posited some interesting facts; like how the pyramids are an upside-down representation of the stars of Orion’s belt, or how the pyramids that were originally thought to constitute two other stars in the
constellation are not in fact related, and how Teotihuacan is two thousand years old rather than twelve. I still hold to facts such as the sheer size and weight of the stone blocks that make up the lower courses of Khufu’s pyramid. They made no attempt to explain the construction method of these marvellous structures. Similarly there was no mention of the so called "Hall of Records" possibly located under the Sphinx. I can’t help but think that this was a concerted effort to undermine your work and to dent your credibility. That the BBC would allow itself to be the platform for this is perhaps quite revealing.

I think that you must have them very worried and in my opinion, you should continue with your work with an increased fervour!

Good Luck!


Simon Whitfield

Subject: About the show…
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 10:33:06 +0000
From: Dave Pigott <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]

Hi Graham,

Having read your book ‘Fingerprints of the Gods’, and being impressed by it, I have followed your TV shows and appearances with interest, and so I was pleased to see that Horizon, a programme that I have respected in the past, was going to look at your theories of a lost civilisation.

Now let me state right up front that I am not a 100% convert to your theories, but I do find them one of the more convincing hypotheses explaining some of the anomalies that we view in the architectural record of the past.

I have noticed that, of recent, Horizon is more openly sceptical than it was some years ago, and I feel that they did not represent both sides of the argument fairly. A very strong editorial bias seems to have been applied, particularly in these last two programmes.

On a number of issues I am quite surprised that either you were not given the right of reply, or that somehow you missed the opportunity to lay a few of their own myths to rest.

For example:

  • The North/South flip of Orion’s belt on the Giza plateau is irrelevant for a couple of reasons. Firstly, and most importantly, if I look in the sky and see the three stars, hold a piece of paper above my head and draw them, and then place that piece of paper on the ground I will get an exact North/South flip. Secondly, what is stunning about Giza is the correspondence to the layout and the incredible accuracy of alignment that we would be hard pushed to achieve today with such large structures.
  • Another fundamental point, which it seemed there was some backpedaling on in the last show, is about when the Giza plateau was constructed. Yes, there were some badly built pyramids, then some better ones, and then, suddenly, they got it right. Then they started building badly again. This doesn’t make sense to me.
  • Nobody mentioned the difficulty of actually moving the very large blocks of stone. Nobody provided any answers as to *how* the pyramids were constructed. This is still an enigma that requires explanation, at least to my point of view.
  • Horizon’s argument about finding the constellation of Leo in Manhattan is specious in the extreme. We’re talking about an area with tens of thousands of buildings all laid out quite nicely, so I can lay almost any pattern over them and find a match somehow. This argument was so flawed it was unbelievable, since in the cases of Giza and other areas we are looking at a massively smaller sample, and at Giza we are looking at three constructions that stand out for so many reasons: In location; lack of usage as tombs; phenomenal accuracy in comparison with other pyramids.
  • They ‘remeasured’ the Giza plateau angles and found a variance from 45 degrees. Well, to start with they took the line through the small one, not through the two larger, and the variance was 12 degrees with the sky. Which still gives you a margin of error of only 900 years or so.
  • Horizon kept saying that there was ‘no evidence to support such a theory’. Not strictly true. There are some indicators. What they failed to do was point out that there is no evidence to *not* support such a theory, although there are also indicators.
  • This brings me to the main point. The coincidence of dates is fascinating. Yes, it could be pure coincidence, but it behooves us to prove that one way or the other.

Sorry for rambling on so long,


Subject: Horizon part two
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 03:38:56 -0700
From: "Molloy, Phil" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]

I was disgusted in the way Graham Hancock was attacked from all angles about the validity of what he has written about Giza, Angkor and the other sites across the world . It was as if each person had a personal vendetta against him.

Each of the sites that Graham had identified with at Angkor bore religous influences. To compare this with a Police station in Manhattan was pathetic.

Phil Molloy
Wigan Lancs

Subject: Horizon programme – part 2
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 11:26:18 -0000
From: "Peter Wrigglesworth" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>

Dear All,

I would like to point out that during last night’s Horizon programme there was a particular issue raised by an American astronomer who gloatingly referred to Graham Hancock’s ‘obvious error’ with regard to his assertion that there is a connection between the pyramids and Orion’s belt. The astronomer quite rightly stated that the pyramids face the opposite direction. Well now, are the makers of the pyramids really telling us that a polar shift of enormous proportions is now due around the next Spring Equinox and that the Earth itself is then about to turn upside down ( ‘stars falling to the Earth…’ ) – that then would put the scientist’s nit-picking into the bracket of glaring error!

Well done Graham for sticking your neck out.

I got back from Egypt this week after visiting the pyramids with my wife and two boys. The authorities there have done a great job on the guides whose knowledge on the subject bears no relationship to the truth. However, they are doing their best under difficult circumstances.

Please remember Graham that, although you may have your detractors out there, there are many amongst the world population who have been in preparation for these times and are grateful for the tremendous effort you and your team are making. Knowledge, balance and unconditional love is tirelessly and patiently waiting for us all out there! Your unravelling of so many secrets is giving each and everyone of us on this blessed planet the opportunity to begin the journey towards enlightenment and 2012.

Thanks a million,
Peter Wrigglesworth.

Subject: A stitch up?
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 11:45:44 +0000
From: Paul Moloney <[email protected]>
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century
To: [email protected]

Saw the second program; it seemed to pretty much debunk your ideas concerning Angkor Wat, to take one example. I’d be curious to
hear your reactions to their four points:

  1. The temples do not match exactly the positions of the stars in the constellation Draco – how do you account for this? Surely if they were going to go to all that trouble to recreate the constellation on the ground, the creators would have been a bit more accurate?
  2. There are many more temples/buildings than stars in the constellation. BY what method did you choose which temples belong to the pattern? It seems that many more constellations could be derived from the matrix of temples, depending on what the viewer is looking for.
  3. How do you react to the fact that there seem to be credible reasons for the fact that some temples are located where they are (for instance, at the site of past battles)? Surely Occam’s Razor would demand that the simplest explanation is probably the correct one?
  4. The creators do not seem to have recognised the constellation Draco (which is afterall just a random selection of stars from the sky). Do you know otherwise?

Interested in your reponse…


Subject: RE: [ancients] Horizon@BBC2 – Part 2 (Dodgy Giza)
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 10:42:32 -0000
From: "scott" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
CC: <[email protected]>

I hope I’m not going to cop a load of flack here but I thought Hancock came across looking like a fool. I’m only familiar with his stuff from watching Heaven’s Mirror and that in itself was convincing but the Horizon program pulled it to pieces. I saw Bauval’s program on the Pyramids / Orion’s Belt correlation and thought that was great too but the Astronomer bloke (can’t remember his name – should have been taking notes) pointed out that either Orion’s belt or the three pyramids are upside down. Orion points North one way, the pyramids point north the other. Horizon even had a red-headed Egyptologist babe (and why can I never meet a woman like this? I’ll settle for a red-headed babe Alternative Egyptologist if there’s any on the list) who pointed out the reason the pyramids are that way is because they run parallel to a ridge on the Giza Plains.

Then there was his Angkor Wat aligning with the constellation of Draco hypothesis. He used about eight temples and excluded DOZEN’S of others. The (argh) Nice White Haired American Lady who’s studied Angkor Watt who, according to Horizon, Hancock has based his speculations on, said there is a mythical / historical reason why each of the temples / palaces are there in the Khmer history and, anyway, their culture has no dragons in it. A constellation that is dragon shaped wouldn’t be recognisable or relevant to them .

It was great to see Robert Schoch on the program because I have a large amount of respect for him. He lives in comfortable academia but is willing to cross over to look at new ideas. Conventional Egyptology is just as rabid and protective of it’s ideas as it’s alternative strains and Dr Schoch has more to lose in saying, as he has in The Fortean Times, that the Sphinx is a lot older than previously thought. That doesn’t mean he’s RIGHT, of course, but he strikes me as an open mind amongst the mass of pre-judging that takes place on BOTH sides of the argument. Schoch’s belief is that the submerged Yonaguni ‘ruins’ are natural, not some sunken Elder race. Nature does create straight lines, remember, just look at The Giants Stepping Stones in Ireland for one of the best examples.

In the face of all this, I think, Hancock blew it. He could have dismissed carbon dating as the not totally reliable test that it is, but he just said he ‘didn’t discuss it’ i.e. he ignored it because it didn’t fit his hypothesis. He described the fact that the Giza Pyramids and Orion’s Belt are upside down to each other as ‘nit-picking’ and tried to plead that these things should be taken ‘mystically’. I’m all for mysticism but when talking about big lumps of blinking stone? Does he mention mysticism in his books?

Robert Schoch thinks Yonaguni is natural because "he hasn’t dived there enough". Hasn’t stared at the clouds long enough? Can’t see the pictures yet?

Hancock may not have the truth. Doesn’t mean there isn’t mystery out there and it doesn’t mean the establishment is right (NEVER!). We need brave souls who go out and emerge with new idea but the act of doing that doesn’t make them right. Maybe we’ve been blinkered by the need to find some Big Brother/Father Figure/God/Santa Clause/Alien /Elder Culture.

I watched Wisdom of the Ancients on BBC2 on Tuesday and it underlined to me that the Vikings got about in their longboats not because of advanced technology, not due to some lost power or some occult wisdom . They knew stuff that we didn’t but that’s because we’re not used to travelling around LIKE the Vikings did. They just used their knowledge and tiny bits of technology to get across the sea and even with an outboard motor a bunch of modern sailors just about managed it. The mysteries are there but maybe they’re from the blood, sweat and ingenuity of the men and women of the past. Some times it angers me that the more sublime wonder of their efforts is trodden on to prove the existence of Atlanteans, Aliens or Gods.

There’s loads out there to be discovered, knowledge to dig up and talked about, old ideas to re-learn and amazing stories to tell. Let’s still have Atlantis there, you can never really DIS-PROVE an idea like that but I think plenty of people just can’t see beyond it to whatever else maybe out there.

See You,


From: squirrel [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 1999 11:05 PM
To: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: [ancients] Horizon@BBC2 – Atlantis Uncovered – Part 2
From: "squirrel" <[email protected]>

Hi, Squirrel here,

Sorry, but the stupid football delayed the programme, and so it’s just a quick response. No doubt there will be a transcript at a website near you soon. Several individuals disputing angles, alignments, or relevence of alignments of Giza plateau and Cambodia. Graham counters that it is the spiritual significance of Mirroring the Heavens that is important, not how accurate a Lost Civilisations’ telescopes and protractors are.

Ongoing dispute about the sunken monument and Robert Schoch’s lack of consensus.

Argued that by including police stations in "randomly picked" selection of city buildings in Manhattan, one could find a "Leo". Another poor joust there methinks.

Coverage of carbon-dating results from Tiahuanaco giving a recent date (of occupation, no doubt ?!).

Also took a quick side-swipe at Rose & Rand Flem-Ath’s view of Atlantis=Antarctica, with ice-core sample evidence. The Flem-Aths already cover this at

Concluded with "Graham Hancock is still scouring the world for evidence of a Lost Civilisation. He has investigated pyramids and a giant stone face on the planet Mars. But [Graham Hancock] is yet to find firm evidence that there really was a forgotten civilisation of god-like astronomers 12,000 years ago."

(The programme actually left all reference to "The Mars Mystery" out, which I thought would have been a major taunt), but so what if it is true – maybe we are still yet to find firm enough evidence to change things, but at least we’re searching.


Subject: Horizon Programme 2
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 13:06:45 -0000
From: "Robert Hicks" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>


The producers of episode 2 have done a great job. Easily swayed people would have disregarded your work immediately. With clever editing, the film maker forced you into a corner out of which you couldn’t escape. I rather enjoyed the item where Horizon made an "incredible discovery" plotting the constellation of Leo against various buildings in Manhattan. They failed to link this with any dates making the casual observer lack trust in your theories. I’m all for arguing the case either way, but lets see it done fairly. As far as I’m concerned, the truth will be told at some point in time but until then we will all carry on looking.

Keep it going

Rob Hicks
Viracocha Limited

Subject: Series on Atlantis
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:24:44 MET
From: "R.P.J.H.RUTTEN (BOW)" <[email protected]>
Organization: Tilburg University
To: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]

Dear Editor(s),

I watched your series on Atlantis and I feel very disapointed by the quality of the programme. Without losing ourselves in a
discussion about who is right and who is wrong, your programme just did not meet the criteria of proper research and proper
journalism. One example of this is the fact that in the first part Mr. Hancock appeared for only some thirty seconds. While his
opponents, in the second part, appeared at length. Also the structure of the programme was questionable. In the second part,
most of Mr. Hancock’s comments were immediately followed by counter arguments from the orthodox camp, while in the first part
Mr. Hancock was not given the same opportunity to contradict the orthodox viewpoints. If this were a trial, an impartial judge would have intervened because this does not nearly resemble a fair cross examination.

Furthermore, you have highlighted only fragments of Mr. Hancock’s theory. And you have selected those that you were able to argue away. You did not show the Olmec faces and you paid no attention to the striking similarities between the myths of different civilizations all over the world. Whether you believe them or not is irrelevant. But in order to judge Mr. Hancock’s theory you have to present the whole theory. And besides, why did you have to bring up von Daniken? Mr. Hancock rejects the work of von Daniken so there is no need to include him in a programme on Mr. Hancock’s theory on a lost civilization. That is, unless your objective is to redicule the whole concept of a lost civilization.

It is perfectly all right for you to disagree with the views of Mr. Hancock. But why did you have to bring the discussion to such a questionable level? The ‘discovery’ of a stellar pattern in Manhatten is laughable to say the least. I think even the orthodoxists in your programme would agree with that. For one, there is no link between Madison Square Garden and the Chrysler Building while the pyramids at Gizah were built from the same concept — whichever theory you prefer, the tombs or Orion. And was it really necessary to include nazism in you discussion?! To me, this attests to bad taste to put it mildly. You could also say it is disgusting. I think you have grossly offended a lot of people, something you should have given more consideration when you made the programme.

In short, your programme was prejudiced from start to finish and resembles an inquisition more than a scientific inquiry. In the end everyone loses with this programme. Mr. Hancock loses because he is not given a fair chance to present his case. The orthodoxists lose because, I feel, you have used them as an instrument in your inquisition. Your audience loses because they are presented bad journalism. And you lose because you have sacrificed your reputation of a respectable and reliable source of information. And the latter, mind you, is still a reference to the form of your programme, not its contents.

Roel Rutten.
Tilburg, the Netherlands.

Subject: Horizon Comments
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 14:01:22 +0000
From: "L. Bousbaine" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]

I was very interested to watch both Horizon programmes but felt I wanted to wait until after the second programme before responding.

I was very disappointed in the first programme. I believe that the misinformed and superficial arguments, in particular of Ken Feder, let the BBC down badly. I do not believe that such a hysterical and misguided response to a challenge to accepted mainstream archaeological thought can be constructive. People like Ken Feder may have strong views and disagree with alternative theorists like Graham Hancock, but surely there is a more constructive way of discussing the points raised. The introduction of the comparison with Nazi doctrine was only ever going to anger those who believe that there is more out there to be discovered and that truth is stranger than fiction. I believe that the issues raised by people like Graham and Robert Bauval et al offer a unique opportunity for mainstream archaeologists to re-evaluate long accepted theories in the light of current research – using both ‘orthodox’ and ‘alternative’ sources.

In comparison, last night’s programme was a breath of fresh air. Both sides of the argument were allowed to present their views without any hysterical posturing. Ed Krupp showed that it is possible to examine ‘alternative’ views in a logical and constructive manner. Equally, Graham Hancock was allowed to present his views calmly without any interruption or ridicule. Ed Krupp may not agree with Graham, but both respect the other’s views.

I also believe that valid points were raised questioning Graham Hancock’s theory, with particular reference to Angkor Wat. With the pyramids, the case is more complicated. Graham believes that the accuracy of overlaying the stars of Orion’s belt and of Draco over Giza and Angkor Wat is unimportant as long as there is a rough match. However, if the ancient people could build their monuments with the precision that they did, they were therefore capable of accurately aligning them with the stars. And if the stars were so important why didn’t they align them properly. In the case of Giza, it may be that the contours of the plateau prevented this from happening, and I would like further information on perspective and how Orion’s belt appeared to those on the ground at Giza. However, at Angkor Wat the alignment does appear to be more random.

All said, I enjoyed the second programme and believe that both sides of the argument have valid points to raise about the history and archaeology of our planet.

L. Bousbaine

Subject: waste of time
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:08:24 -0000
From: "Stuart Bolton" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>

I believed in your theories about a lost civilisation, until last night. The horizon program has blown just about every shred of evidence you had to support your theory regarding a lost civilisation out of the water. I’m currently reading your book and I was just up to chapter 6., needless to say after what I watched last I will not be finishing it and it now resides in the bin!

Subject: Horizon comments
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 14:47:35 -0000
From: Simon Cook <[email protected]>
To: "’[email protected]’" <[email protected]>

Dear Mr Hancock

I watched your excellent three part series on Channel 4 a while back "The Quest for the Lost Civilisation" which incidentally I found fascinating. Particularly the hidden chamber found in the Great Pyramid and the fantastic images carved in the stone in Mexico (the spider and the alien looking figure) which I personally don’t think could have been produced so accurately without some kind of overhead perspective.

I was therefore deeply disappointed with the way Horizon tried to portray both yourself and the other "alternative theory" scientists as at best lacking in evidence and at worst dangerous cranks.

They (Horizon) without any real evidence or facts worthy of the name, tried to debunk and ridicule any suggestion you had put forward as a possible explanation for a "Lost Civilisation" whose influence was felt across the globe many thousands of years ago.

Surely if it were not for forward thinking people such as yourself we would still believe that the Earth was flat and that the Planets and the Sun revolved around the Earth !

After all wasn’t Charles Darwin originally thought of as a wrong before his Theory of Evolution was proved to be correct.

Personally I think that the bottom line is that whether you agree with all, only some or none of the theories that you have put forward. Surely it is better to keep an open mind and consider the many alternative possibilities of how we have become who we are as we approach the end of the millenium.

Rather than just steadfastly refuse to believe in anything other than the supposed "truth" that as many other contibutors to this page have pointed out is in the mainstream scientists’ and establishment’s interest to have us believe.

Keep up the good work & best wishes with the new book

yours sincerely

Simon Cook

Subject: after having seen Horizon part 2
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 16:31:23 +0100
From: Matthieu Hilckmann <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]

Having seen both parts and certainly after yesterday’s episode, I felt a bit worried for the Lost Civilisation theory. I found most conclusions by the Horizon team credible, well-founded and unbiased. The team did give Graham a fair chance to defend himself, but his defense was rather poor. Using the word nitpicking and trying to downplay the accuracy of building techniques by the ancients (which he professes to be near perfect) wasn’t excactly helping his case. He sounded more like a disgruntled child, really.

Graham’s theory was not left unscathed, which is good; all the more reason to review the evidence and come up with a better idea. Because, in my opinion, Graham is a believer and believers have this tendency to want to see what they want to see. But Graham is no scientist and scientists have this tendency to fanatically stick to their ideas, no matter what. This is where Graham has the freedom to say: "Well, back to the drawing board," which I think he should, because I think he does some great work, but I did have to agree with Horizon that some facts were used a bit too leisurely.

Subject: Horizon – Part 2 Thursday 4 November
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 16:12:27 -0000
From: "David Letellier" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>


I watched both parts of Horizon about Atlantis.

Of course, I was disappointed. In such matters, I expect people to work hand in hand, in order to prove or refute a theory, whether Graham Hancock’s or the orthodox one. But in part 2 (not part 1, since G. Hancock never appeared), poor Hancock was on his own against a crowd of what might be called ‘extremist scientists’, whose ideas and refutations were, in some cases, not badly thought. What I mean here is that the way the program was edited, and the bits that were shown, left no chance, or rather gave no opportunity for Hancock to support or even defend his ideas.

The program was laid in a way that resembled a political debate, trying to win some kind of argument. This is by no means a way towards progress.

If I get it right, G Hancock really is suggesting that it is possible, if not plausible, that a lost civilisation has existed in the past and that this idea should not be ruled out without CONVINCING evidence. First, the people in the program never showed such evidence (that Cambridge or Oxford women who claims that the pyramids were laid the way they are is due to topographical reasons should, in my opinion, only be considered as a SUGGESTION, and doesn’t overrule the Orion theory, simply because it is only an idea), and second, it seems that the sole purpose of the program was to turn G. Hancock’s theories to derision, to try to prove that it is the work of a crank.

It seems obvious that people in power, directly or indirectly, feel the need to eradicate such theories by broadcasting programs like Horizon, and this for a simple reason: if Hancock is right, or even remotely right, then the accepted history of the world as well as the now accepted theory of evolution wouldn’t stand as strong, and would need rethinking. This is too much for the authorities to cope with because the faith or trust that people have put in them would weaken. The people are the sheep of a country and must remain sheep. This is why, I believe, that a year after the publication of Heaven’s mirror, something had to be done in order to stop the ‘contamination’ (this has happened in the past to Galileo, for example).

Anyway, to come back to the program itself. They showed that the Orion theory was rubbish, the Draco theory was rubbish, the submarine monument was not man-made, the ruins in Bolivia (I forget the name but I think it’s the one Poznansky dedicated 50 years to ) were too shattered to prove anything, the Sphinx erosion was due to the salt contained in the limestone which happens to accelerate the process, that Antarctica has been covered with ice for hundreds of thousands of years… Basically, every single idea of Hancock’s was shown to be refutable. Did Hancock have his say? Not really.

So, Graham, could you let us know your answers to these so-called evidences? I can remember, for instance, that C. Hapgood in Maps of … cites some scientific analysis of the sediments at the bottom of the sea somewhere in Antarctica, of which results clearly say that rivers were running with fresh water pouring into the ocean something like 6000 years ago. Which to believe, or rather, which is correct?

Lastly, I think that the work of Hapgood, both in Path of the poles and Maps of the Ancient Sea-kings stands as strong as ever and that the maps pre-dating the discovery of Antarctica, and yet featuring it not only free of ice, but also as an archipelago should not be forgotten.

Bonne chance dans ta quête, Graham.


Subject: Horizon
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 17:59:16 +0100
From: "JOHN DEAS" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]

Dear Graham,

The BBC normally produces some of the best factual telly around today,but the Horizon programes-particularly"part two" were the worst cases of one-sided totally subjective garbage I have seen for quite some time. I am totally convinced that any general viewer with a little background information would have been left in no doubt that you are purely parading outlandish ideas about to make loads of money!

I was particularly appalled by carbon dating refered to as if it provides absolute proof — with no explanation of what it is/how it works. Also, apparently it is only you who thinks the Sphinx is older than everyone Else — Bob Schoch was not mentioned, not in this instance anyway — it might have been suppotive! -he was only used in a dismissive role regarding the Yonaguni monument.

Very disappointing,very sad. I hope future programes of this kind will pull right back and offer both sides to viewers. There is plenty of midground here and consciencous producers are capable of exploring it.

Regards John Deas

Subject: Horizon Part II
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 21:33:03 -0000
From: "Steve" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>


They really are getting desperate aren’t they? I will never again watch Horizon without the thought that they are manipulating information to fit their own agenda. The second episode in particular was a clear attempt to discredit and debunk the work you and your counterparts are involved in.

I must make mention of one particular point. It was astounding to me that they debunked the Sphinx erosion theory without naming Dr Robert Schoch. They later wheeled him out expound his opinion on the ruins off Japan as though his word was gospel.

Incidentally, I seem to remember a TV programme that showed you and Schoch diving on the Japanese structure. He seemed quite enthusiastic about the possibility of the ruins being man made. It took me a little by surprise that he had completely changed his opinion.

I leave you with a quote from one Thomas Paine.

‘Time makes more converts than reason’.

Good luck

Steve Bowe

Subject: So called scientists
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1999 00:05:55 +0000
From: Lisa Nolan <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]

In the second program, when they find ‘scrappy’ evidence to argue that the pyramids do not represent Orion’s belt, the so called scientists forget a huge chunk of Egyptian culture. They forgot to mention that the Egyptians held Orion’s belt to be the home of one of their most worshipped Gods, Osiris..(a civilizing God at that) So it seems only natural that they would want to portray Orion on the ground. The program also conveniently forgot to mention the myths which all these "coincidentally occurring" civilizations shared. The same myths in Mexico as in Bolivia, speaking of huge floods and Caucasian God like men that brought them civilization etc.( Quetzalcoatal and Viracocha.)

Its so frustrating that they only used the information they wanted, to bend the true picture into the answers they wanted to hear. What’s wrong with people? Why are they so afraid to learn that we may not have been the most advanced civilisation? it pride?…is it religious?… Personally I find it exciting and intriguing to try and discover / answer all the mysteries surrounding us. Sound crazy? Not to me, there’s so much in this life that we don’t understand, how can we possibly learn, if we don’t allow ourselves to be taught.?

Tzarri Fox

Subject: atlantis uncovered
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 19:34:41 EST
From: [email protected]
To: [email protected]

Dear Mr. Hancock,

I have admired your work over the last few years and encourage you to keep going no matter what anyone says about you or how your ideas are presented.

However, is it possible that there was no "single source", no "lost civilisation", but that each of these cultures did develop on their own with influence from each other. We know that the ancient people had contact with each other and that many share the myth of a great flood. Today, as cultures come in contact with each other they carry away information, is it not possible that this sort of thing could have happened in that past as well? Maybe the "primitive " people of the past were smart enough to record the events that occured around them, either orally or with pictures and shared these stories with others. Could not a group of these people have had the following conversation, " oh, you had a great flood in your land too, how many generations ago?" "it was 20 cycles of the moon." "do the stars in your land move through the sky and return each year?" "yes they do, and they make special shapes that represent our animals and Gods." "that is very informative, we shall honor your visit by making giant stone carvings, and tell of you in our legends".

I am one who has faith in technology and believes that most often the simplest, but not neccessarily the most convenient answer is correct . Please continue your good work.

Richard Hecht, Tacoma, Wa.

Subject: Lost Horizon…
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1999 00:38:03 +0000
From: EMIL <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>

The flagship BBC science program cannot see and does not want to see beyond it’s own "Horizon"… In self imposed exile it flounders like a ship in a sea of prejudice, afraid it will fall off the edge of the world, but the storm is gathering, and only with the spirit of Columbus will it ever reach the far shore…

That shore is at the edge of THE pyramid, an object now so familiar that we seem to be losing sight of it’s unique and vital significance. All other pyramids are irrelevant as far as alignments are concerned, none are represented by the Sphinx, as mysterious and ancient to the Egyptians as it is to us today. The Giza Plateau; at the centre of the world, 6,000,000 tons of solid rock rising to the height of a 48 storey building, 90 million cubic feet of mystery comprised of 2,400,000 stones some weighing as much as a railway locomotive. To even consider building such a monument today would stretch our technology and resources to their limits. Originally covered with a white limestone casing and known by the name; ‘THE LIGHT’ Imagine this gleaming colossus in the middle of the desert, this was no tomb, this was designed to last thousands of years, this is the ultimate how and why? I’m still not convinced by the now seemingly settled account of it’s age, I just believe we should not take for granted that science and reason will always succeed in overcoming our capacity to sometimes ignore what lies buried deep in our hearts and beneath our feet…

Subject: Re: Horizon’s "Altantis Reborn"
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 06:52:00 +0300
From: "Vladimir Pakhomov" <[email protected]>
Organization: AlphaΩ
To: <[email protected]>
CC: <[email protected]>
References: 1

To the editor,

Has read all comments to the program "Horizon Atlantis" on your page

Thank you.

Always interesting hear the different opinions.

Yours Sincerely,

Vladimir Pakhomov

Subject: Come to America!!
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 11:32:44 -0500
From: "Lou DiSano" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>


I believe there is an untapped media source you should examine and that is Public Broadcasting in the U.S.

I’m sure there is enough public interest here and you would not have the politics you are running into in England.

Louis DiSano

Subject: recent programs
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 1999 23:57:03 -0500
From: Simon Chuang <[email protected]>
Organization: Johns Hopkins University
To: [email protected]

I have read the transcripts concerning your program because I live unfortunately in the United States. Though I haven’t read Heaven’s Mirror, which I hope to do in the near future, I understand why you’re clearly disappointed in how the producers of the program depicted your theories. What’s interesting to me is about Tiahuanaco in Bolivia that you mentioned in Fingerprints of the Gods is that it is a port town despite the fact that it is miles away from the nearby water source. You mention that water recedes gradually that it can’t happen in the matter of centuries, but in millennia. The program also fails to point out that there are reliefs in some monuments there that resemble ancient extinct mammals that existed around 10,500 B.C., as written in your book. Your findings in underwater investigations are astonishing. Though I haven’t read much about it, if the structures underwater are truly artificial, it clearly proves that something very advanced was going on tens of thousands of years ago, or at least eons back because ocean coastlines change in very small increments. The program apparently missed the point of your refuting the pyramids as the tomb of the pharaohs. (Meanwhile, I hope that someone opened that secret door in the Great Pyramid and investigated that black statue since that is a revolutionary discovery.) It does point out that of the 81 pyramids that were created, only three seem to align to the stars. Well, I could suposse that the other 78 pyramids could have been built after the three pyramids as an imitation of greatness. In other words, assuming that the three pyramids were built 12,000 years ago by an advanced civilization, the other 78 pyramids could have been built any time afterwards by the native Egyptians themselves as a away to glorify themselves. Having read four of your books, I find it hard for anyone not to accept your theories. Your theory is clearly reasonable and scientific. I believe that in the matter of 20 years or so, the way history is taught in school across the world will be radically changed. I can’t understand why the educational system elsewhere, including in the U.S. hasn’t started incorporating your ideas. It is
just a matter of time before everyone accepts your theory. I may have made some misinterpretations since I haven’t seen the program and haven’t read your books for a long time (last one I read was Mars Mystery in ’98 summer). Good luck in your research and may your painstaking work be a rewarding experience.

Yours truly,
Simon S. Chuang

Subject: A letter to the BBC
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1999 00:23:02 -0800
From: "The Maskell Family" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]

I thought you might be interested in the following letter which I have emailed to Bettina Lerner at the BBC.

From: "The Maskell Family" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Subject: Atlantis Uncovered
Date: Fri, Nov 5, 1999, 11:29 PM

Hello Ms. Lerner,

I am very dissapointed to find the BBC is misleading it’s viewers. I have always seen the BBC as an outstanding television company and have deeply regretted that it is not transmitted overseas. I am unhappy to learn that it, though Horizon’s Atlantis Uncovered and Atlantis Reborn, has been involved in misrepresenting at least two of the people it has interveiwed for it’s documentaries, those two people being Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval. According to both men it appears that the programs producers have actually lied to them. They were told that they would be allowed to fully and clearly respond to the aurguments being made against them and were, in fact, not given that justice. If the documentaries were worth making then surely they should have been truthful. An aurgument is not won honestly when one side is silenced and/or mis-quoted, nor is the truth represented. Clearly the ideas of Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval are so persuasive that the only way to discredit them (and it appears that is what was intended all along) is to lie to them and then publicly misrepresent them. I hope that Horizon and the BBC intend to make a sincere and public apology to these two men.

Unfortunately the damage to their reputations and their work is done and it will be much harder to retract that wrong than it was to cause it.

Thank-you for your attention in this matter. Kirsten Maskell

Subject: Horizon programme – Thursday 4th November
Date: Fri, 5 Nov 1999 23:49:34 -0000
From: "david moorhouse" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>

If the ice in Antarctica is 400’000 years old as the makers of the BBC programme Horizon stated, then how do they explain the Piri Reis map? Surely if they are right, then the coast of Antartica will have been mapped out 400’000 years ago, instead of 10500 years ago as stated by Graham Hancock. The programme in my view was just mass propaganda to stop people asking questions into our real past. Graham Hancock or someone else should concentrate on the three main obvious things to look for:

1 Open the door in the main pyramid of Giza.

2 Open the room which is under the Sphinx’s paw.

3 To organise a 2 mile square dig of the Antarctic surface to the land below at a strategic point and investigate and discuss.


Subject: Horizon
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 00:57:03 -0000
From: "david moorhouse" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>

Do not be too downhearted regarding the Horizon program on 4th november 1999. It was, nothing short of MASS propaganda and the producers of the program are not entirely to blame for this pre-Christopher Columbus that the world is flat view. I cannot say why they portrayed Mr Hancock in this manner – only to stop the same propaganda happening to me. What I will say is this, what convincing reason does Dr Zahi Hawass have for asking Mr Gantenbrink to leave the Pyramids and his country at such short notice, and also why were his findings left in the air? The truth will come out one day, but there seems to be a very powerful committee who, in my findings, are an alliance of governments who, and do, stop these truths being told to the masses.

Hope to hear from you soon


Mr D Armstrong

Subject: The second Horizon programme
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 10:20:23 -0000
From: "Richard Bagnall" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>

Dear Graham,

Again I feel that I have been moved to write to you concerning the Horizon programme aired last Thursday. Again I was dismayed by the one-sidedness of the reporting. At no time did the programme choose to give fair hearing to your side of the discussion. Opinions generated by the ‘experts’ were held as fact without any serious evidence to back them up while questions that your research has raised were dismissed as if they were the questions of a foolish child. I have always held the Horizon programme in high regard but I’m afraid the last two programmes were a blot against the good name of the BBC.

Yet again Carbon-dating was held as a measure of dating buildings. It seemed as if by holding a scientific measure up to the general public they would be hoodwinked into doubting the remainder of your reasoning. As I wrote in my last e-mail (and no doubt many others) ‘How do you carbon-date stone?’ It is pure nonsense. You can only carbon date organic material that was found in the general vicinity.

The weathering of the Sphinx was completely ignored, dismissed with a wave of a sentence. They did not choose to let the viewer know that the majority of geologists believe that some of the erosion of the Sphinx can only be caused by water (i.e. Rain!).

I have not got access to the original rushes but I am certain that a great deal of editing was applied to your replies, for many points that were raised by the programme have been answered by you before and yet they seemed decidedly absent in this programme.

I will not go into the Leo/New York correlation. A city built on a grid system will yield any picture you want it to. It is like joining the dots! If there was to be any animal represented in New York surely it would be an eagle? It is the national symbol, where were the religious overtones to the building of these monuments (one of which was a corner store?) that is found in the sites you have investigated.

There is more that I could say, but I have read your letter to Horizon and I feel that you have made your case clear. I do hope that the BBC is ashamed of the programme they produced and allow you to put forward your case in an equally biased programme. I will be writing to the programme complaints department to register my disgust.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Bagnall

Subject: BBC2
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 11:37:10 +0100
From: "Gilbert de Jong" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>

Dear Graham,

With great expectations I waited for the broadcast of the second programme of BBC. With growing astonishment I watched the BBC-painters painting you as Sancho Panza fighting against the ‘established’ scientists on a background of heavenly windmills. .

I think you’re right; there is a heaven’s mirror. The placing of the three pyramids on the Giza plateau might be part of a general masterplan. The argument that the second and third pyramids were built on this particular spot because of the contour lines of the landscape is not an argument against the Orion-outlay but pro. It shows us that the makers of the masterplan were really fine architects and used the ‘Genius Loci’ or spirit of the place.

Expecting a less coloured programme I’m disappointed in the quality of ‘defences’ brought up by the BBC in relation to your inspiring and controversial theories. You didn’t deserve this and I think it’s misleading.

With kind regards and wishing you the best.

Ing. G.J. de Jong


Subject: Horizon
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1999 15:11:51 +0000
From: Paula Nunn <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>

To the Editor,

The latest Horizon programme left me feeling very sad and very angry. I have followed the work of both Robert and Graham since 1994, I have always considered them to be very fair in their presentation and have a cross-discipline approach. The same cannot be said of the Horizon producers.

As a lay person, some of the more technical aspects of their arguments are a little above me; geological findings in particular. So, like others, I listen to those in authority and form an opinion based on their’s. This does not mean I believe everything I read. Through the works of various authors and media such as the internet, I have heard every side of the argument and every subsequent counter argument. I have never allowed myself to be blinded by science or another persons passion.

This is my main concern with the Horizon programme, I felt their opinion was forced on me. It did not allow for a counter argument and gave the impression it wasn’t needed. A sort of case closed, end of story, you were wrong opinion. This was not what I expected from the BBC, I have always enjoyed their historical programmes and video-taped many for reference, including other programmes where the work of Robert and Graham was discussed. When compared, I am left feeling this latest programme was simply part of a build them up and knock then down mentality.

It was extremely biased and tried not only to make Robert and Graham look foolish but also those that supported their work. I would like to think I speak for many people when I say we are not stupid. Our opinions are formed by arguments on both sides and we may not always believe everything Robert and Graham write. Graham and Robert do however present both sides of an argument, it is a shame the BBC do not!


Paula Nunn

PS I will be sending a copy of this letter to the BBC and asking for a reply.

Subject: Horizon open letter
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 14:56:34 -0000
From: "Ken" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>

Dear Graham,

Many thanks for the copy of the open letter sent to the BBC in the aftermath of the double barrelled Horizon programme shown recently.

After having read it, and checked back through your books where relevant, it appears that I was very hasty in criticising without checking my facts first. As you yourself stated, the TV presentation did indeed make it look as though you had been caught out and lost for words on occasions, especially regarding the carbon dating issue and the lack of reference to a Dragon in Khmer culture (which is obviously based in Cambodia, not Vietnam as I think I said before!). This obviously took very careful editing and it would be very interesting to see if Dennis Norden will collect the rest of *that* interview from the cutting room floor and display it on a Saturday night!

The apparent 180 degree turnabout of the stars in Orion’s belt depicted by the pyramids of Giza is actually quite obvious when given a little thought, and my apologies for not engaging the working half of my brain to see it! As I said though, the true test of any theory is whether it can stand up to scrutiny from other, possibly more objective, viewpoints and with further consideration it seems that Horizon has, for whatever purpose, used only selective evidence in it’s programmes. The BBC’s flagship science vehicle has always presented itself as almost a definitive authority on whatever subject it cares to select but to see the bias that has been shown I find myself wondering just what else I have taken as gospel after watching other episodes.

Many thanks for the use of my quote in your letter too, I am sure we are not the only two who previously thought the BBC beyond reproach. I understand that you will be rather busy at this moment in time so I won’t expect a reply to this but I will be watching the BBC website with some interest to see if they are bold enough to publish an open letter in response.

Yours, with thanks for your time,
Ken Ledger.

Subject: Second Episode
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 16:10:54 +0000
From: Bevil Templeton-Smith <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]

I was horrified to watch the second Horizon episode in the Atlantis Reborn series which tore apart the theories of Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval etc. I am saddened to discover that the BBC does not believe in questioning the established belief, which in this case is grounded only on a flimsy wafer of evidence and hand-me-down scientific knowledge. Assuming that Graham Hancock et al are not out to make a quick buck from an admittedly primed audience, one has to agree that they have some notion of what they research. It is therefore a great pity that a platform is given to those who clearly have a limited understanding of the subject and bolster their own unscientific beliefs with the selective choosing and editing of interviewees. A cursory glance at Chris Hale’s alarmingly amateur website ( confirms that his self indulgent craving for attention is responsible for his can of worms approach to the Atlantis Reborn programme.

Perhaps we should consider why it might be that there is such a disproportionately enormous backlash against the alternative
theories, ranging from Egyptologists to a supposedly world class television channel. I guess that the establishment doesn’t want the popularity of the "fringe" to continue to grow, if this is the case, I believe that Atlantis Reborn series will have exactly the opposite effect from what the stunt was (clearly) manufactured to do. For all I am worth and with all my heart, I hope to dammit that you are right Graham…

"It’s lovely when a programme turns accepted wisdom on its head – and Horizon does it so elegantly…you get carried along with the flow and the implications are breathtaking." (‘The Times’) (excerpt from Chris Hale’s website) – nice to have the choice of which accepted wisdoms to turn on their heads hey Chris?.

Subject: Comments
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 16:24:04 -0000
From: "Pamela Heywood" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>

Dear Graham,

I think I am as appalled as you are at the way the BBC has manipulated the case, taking quotes and comments out of context to fit what they require, but it shocks me to say that I am no longer surprised: no longer have the expectation of *reputable* institutions to behave in an honourable and just manner.

I have nothing more than intuition and a vague knowledge that there are too many coincidences to be coincidences, but that alone assures me of the real possibility that at best our conventional history books only show what man was capable of interpreting at that point.

To deny other possibilities, even if one does not openly accept them, is an unacceptably narrow view.

In everything I have seen and read of yours and Robert Bauval’s work, I have seen you present evidence in a clear manner, not forcing a view upon a reader or viewer, but presenting it in a way that asks them to think and decide for themselves. I have great respect for that.

Just remember that the truth is the truth and every genius with a non-conventional theory has always been persecuted in history and generally later found to be right.

Pamela Heywood

Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 12:30:08 -0500
From: "Cynthia Bowers Dougherty" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>

Regarding the transcript of Horizon 2

Dear Graham and Robert,

While YOU, Plato, Copernicus, Darwin, and Wegener work to enlighten the rest of us as to the scope and possibilities of the ‘whole elephant’, it’s amazing how many others still have their heads stuck up its butt!!

Cindy Dougherty

Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 02:26:49 -0000
From: "ANTON MILLAND" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>

Dear Graham,

Enclosed E-mail sent to HORIZON regarding their 2 part "Atlantis" programme. Am much impressed with all the E-mails sent to you so far, thank goodness there are far wiser people then those who produced the above. It was dare I say criminal !, but then this is the "Status Quo" programme which the planet has been locked into for 12.500 years odd. What works behind these people wittingly or unwittingly has no compassion and will fight at any cost, doesn’t matter how ruthless to keep and perpetuate this "planetary programme" which is the root cause of all the disease, disharmony and outward expressions in Chechnya’s, Kosovo’s, Iraq’s propaganda wars by a TWO SIDED Super Power ( Russia U.S ) — Two Sides, Same (Status Quo) Coin ruled by something insidous and not seen.!

I have had my doubts about your Cambodia theory after the last Horizon episode but since re-reading your letter to the BBC now feel more in favour. As regards Ed Krupp’s attack on you about the Orion’s Belt / Pyramid alignments being wrong, could you have both possibly missed the point as the 10,500 BC "star fix" is a pole reversal date ? In other words our planet has been since that time in the wrong polarity and the ancients have guided us to realize the time has come to lock-on / synchronize to the 10,500 BC time frame with the correct polarity restored and previous "RIGHT and POSITIVE" Planetary Soft-Ware loaded ( CROP CIRCLES ) being the outward manifestation of this ! I will send a little scientific info to prove this to some degree along with the Solar Mega Cycle info.

Please E-mail me, time permitting if you have any ideas queries on this, it would be most appreciated.

With kindest regards

Anton Milland.

Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 06:40:38 -0000
From: "ANTON MILLAND" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>

To Dilly Barlow And All The Horizon Team.

"WELL DONE HORIZON" — for trying at best with a "double-whammy" ( two programmes ) to kill a little hope and light for mankind’s future in an otherwise darkened world ( hence the ever increasing cases of stress / depression and ever-more need of escapisms like films, computer games and holidays to get away from the grinding "Status Quo", which the BBC and Horizon seems to stubbornly defend ). The first programme was a fair enough critizisation, as all new theories need to be checked by known facts but the second programme went for a heartless kill. Hancock deserved the best part of the second episode to defend himself etc, which your programme made no attempt at, not that I agree with all Hancock says — Cambodia’s astrological connections a good example — but as much as orthodox science with their "weapons" of pick / trowel and carbon dating clinically trashing all alternative ideas, blindly thinking they are somewhat "god", very biased and in no-way fair to the populace who yearns for something more. ( read GHan_Intro ).

I do respect much of the facts put foward by those on your programme ( Dr Ken Feder, Prof Colin Renfrew etc ) but life and the universe is far less simple then the rationalist answer they espouse ( their "know-all" arrogance gives almost the impression they had a hand in creation itself), "but of course as we all know everything came all about by chance" — this is even far less plausible than Hancock or even David Ickes theories, I wonder how many mainstream scientists admit being wrong ? Hancock at least admits mistakes.

Subject: BBC
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1999 15:07:06 -0500
From: "J. David Delaney" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]

I would like to also submit a complaint to the BBC regarding their "cut
and paste" misrepresentation of the facts. Journalists do not behave in
such a manner.

J. David Delaney

Subject: FW: Horizon- Nov 4th
Date: Sat, 6 Nov 1999 20:21:30 -0000
From: Mark Consterdine [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: 06 October 1999 17:41
To: [email protected]
Subject: Fw: Horizon- Nov 4th

Dear Guys

Here’s a copy of the letter I sent to Ms. Lerner feel free to use
it or forward it as you wish.

From: Mark Consterdine
To: [email protected]
Subject: Horizon- Nov 4th

Dear Bettina

I would wish to register my disapproval at the way you treated Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval on Thursdays Horizon. It was potentially one of the best Horizon programs to be made, instead it was a witch hunt and a concerted effort to make both men look stupid. I’m sure as far as most viewers were concerned you succeeded. Much of their argument was omitted and it seemed apparent that some tabloid style editing had been applied to Graham Hancock’s comments.

The most shameful part of the program was for me was to match Leo against a map of New York and claim this as a "Startling discovery by Horizon researchers" this final kick in the nuts coming at the end of the program. A small child could create a dot to dot of the Mona Lisa on a map of New York it’s not clever and it’s not research either.

I trust I am not the only person to complain about this and can not help but think that may be there’s a little underlying bitterness that Hancock’s series on Channel 4 got better viewing figures than anything you ever made.

In conclusion although I accept some of Hancock’s work has flaws, his case is a lot stronger than you allowed him to demonstrate and in the bigger picture of things the world needs men like him and Bauval. If you fail to see at least that much then I can only feel a little pity for you, in the mean time I hope you got a good bollocking.

Sincerely yours
Mark Consterdine.

Subject: A small question
Date: Sat, 06 Nov 1999 22:38:42 GMT
From: "Robin Dal Pozzo McVay" <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]

To Graham Hancock,

May I first of all say how sorry I am that the Horizon programme was so biased against you and Bauval and all those who believe that you may well be correct concerning our "Amnesia).

Could you please clarify whether the temples which you believe represent the constellation of Draco have distinguishing features from all the other temples surrounding them (eg, only the temples representing Draco demonstrated a faith to a God represented by the snake) In other words why did you only pick out these specific temples.

I hope that you understand the question but to tell you the truth it is taking me a while to understand everything about your work as there is a hell of a lot there!!!

Still it may take a while but I’ll get there eventually

Yours Sincerely

Robin Dal Pozzo McVay

Subject: Horizon Episode 2
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 1999 01:07:05 +0100
From: Paul Humphreys <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>

Dear Graham,

Episode 2 Horizon – Lost Civilisation / Atlantis Mythos

Having read from cover to cover most of your publications from "Fingerprints" through to "Heavens Mirror" (Although The Mars Mystery was a bit Erich Von Danniken for my tastes, SORRY!!), I have to admit feeling a bit cheated after watching the above documentary. After all the BBC screens only well researched and impartial documentaries, doesn’t it?

Having invested a lot of time and effort in your writing and theories, the documentary portrayed both yourself and Robert Bauval as charlatans twisting and discarding evidence to fit the theories presented in your and other authors books and television documentaries in the ancient wisdom field.

  1. I refer to the Orion’s Belt / Pyramid Correlation – any one with a computer can see the match for the three stars of the belt and the pyramids Khufu, Khafre and Menkaure don’t match exactly when laid one on top of the other, however it’s still a theory worth considerable scientific and academic investigation in my opinion. My main problem was the Bauval story had changed tack from the original story I had watched in a documentary on the discovery channel years previous. (One night whilst sitting under the stars with a friend…..)
  2. Heavens Mirror Star correlation’s – Ankor Wat / Draco. I have to admit this is a theory I was never comfortable with, I have always felt that the resemblance was coincidental and just not close enough to warrant serious consideration. I thought my theories on this one had been confirmed when the experts started rubbishing your evidence as presented in the book and the Channel 4 documentary, your comments also on the matter when asked made you look less than convincing.
  3. In part of the interview you say that the representations on the ground were purely symbolic representations created by non anal-retentive priests not concerned with absolute accuracy. Having read many of your books i.e. Fingerprints of the Gods which spout precessional numbers and arc seconds of true north south orientations no to mention pi, Phi, the circumference of the earth and minute discrepancies of length of side etc, I felt this comment in itself, was evasive and anal-retentive.

I realise after reading your letter of complaint to the BBC that the documentary set out to debunk and ruin reputations, therefore this letter should not be taken as a personal attack on you by myself, it is only meant to outline my disappointment as the BBC made you and others alike look like charlatans out to earn a quick buck.

I would like to offer my support and congratulate you on all your great work to date, keep the ideas and thought provoking literature coming.

Yours Sincerely

Paul Humphreys
[email protected]

P.S. Is the BBC in on the Stargate Conspiracy or is the Stargate Conspiracy Theory just that a piece of paranoid conspiracy theorist nonsense? Who Watches the Watchmen?

Subject: I know best!
Date: Sun, 7 Nov 1999 03:51:52 +0100
From: "baalzebub" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>


I went to Oxford University, so I know that Graham Hancock’s theories are wrong – and mine are right!

Yours arrogantly,

Tung. N.Cheek