From: Roger []
Sent: 29 November 2000 10:13
Subject: Horizon

It is with great disappointment that I read of the BBC’s intentionally edited of the Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval interview. I have read ALL the relevant documents and can only conclude that you had every intention of discrediting this fine work.

I have always had a high regard for the BBC’s standard of broadcast ethics and regularly watch BBC shows with great respect for the people that put them together for their objective behaviour.

I will never again have this kind of respect for the BBC, and I urge you to have the live TV debate after the rebroadcasting of Atlantis Reborn. I look forward to watching a factually correct version of Horizon’s in Australia soon.


Roger Graham
Sydney, Australia

From: KAIL []
Sent: 20 November 2000 23:52

Dear Mr John Lynch.

It was with dismay that I read of the events taking place between Horizon (and the BBC science unit), and the author Graham Hancock. Here in Sweden we have come to expect nothing but the very highest standards of decency and honesty from the BBC…Particularly in regard to science broadcasting..”Horizon” has always been at the very peak of quality and content. (although, sadly, we only see a few of the “best” [??!!] here in the north) and when I heard of the debacle with Mr hancock and yourselves, it was not hard to side with the BBC and it’s track record of fairness!..However; “Atlantis reborn” has not yet been screened here, but I have been fortunate to see a videotaped copy from an English colleague..and I am quite troubled. I have read mr Hancocks and Mr Bauvals angry comments on the website…And I find that I much agree with them..that which you call in English, “a hatchet job” seems a most appropriate description for a very one sided program..

I think that the whole thrust of the program was to discredit Mr Hancock & mr bauval and anyone else who should be foolish enough to even consider thier “theories” or ideas or opinions..etc..

I wonder why it was so important that these ideas be crushed.. Are the traditional eygyptologists and historians so utterly superior in thier knowledge..??..Or are they in fact deeply disturbed by what they themselves were not able to contemplate..!!??

Has british TV made its first steps down from the top of the broadcasting ladder!!???.. I am NOT fully convinced by Mr Hancocks and Mr Bauvals theories…as they stand now they are only theories or opinions…But I have read enough of mr Hancock to know that he is no fool, and that there may well be something in what He proposes..I don’t know.. and…You don’t know……Yet!!…But the arguments are worthy of more respect than was given in the horizon broadcast !

(It was not too many years ago that I was told quite definitely, that no bacteria of any kind could live in the acids of the human stomach…then came Helicobacter…!!!!, and If you think about it there are many many similar examples throughout science!)..So, as representatives for the BBC, which we in the rest of the world still look up to I would urge you to give Mr hancock & company thier chance to restate thier case and let science and logic (NOT narrow minded myself!) the judge!

Mr Hancocks idea of a debate program would be wonderfull..shame we wouldn’t see it on Swedish TV.

I hope I have given you something to think about…It’s a strange world out there!!

Regards from Sweden, and thankyou for all the other wonderfull Horizon programs!

Richard Kail.

PS. A programme about the closed minds of some of the worlds brightest minds (ie. “Scientists and “Experts”) would be a most entertaining subject ..perhaps something for Horizon..!!???

From: Eddie Harwood []
Sent: 20 November 2000 21:50
Subject: Graham Hancock – Horizon

Dear Sir

I have watched the Horizon series for a long time and have enjoyed most of the topics that have been covered. However I feel cheated. How many other people have had their interviews take out of context?

Do you not realize that the WEB is a very powerful medium? Whether you play the uncut version of the interview or not people who watch these programs talk to one and other.

So what have you got to lose in a live debate? If Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval are idiots then surely it will be plain for everyone to see and your case would be closed.

If I were Graham I would go back to Channel 4.

Thank you for your time.

Eddie Harwood

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

From: Paul de Freitas []
Sent: 20 November 2000 12:23
Subject: Graham Hancock

Dear Mr. Lynch

I am again astounded that the centre of world broadcasting (especially its very “creative” Science Department) is trying to cover, pardon the expression, its “rebuttal”. To deny Mr. Hancock the right to publish interview notes in circumstances so special as these, that is in which the BBC has specifically been censured by the BSC, is another reason for sweeping changes in your department and at the BBC.

The Horizon programme and others such as Panorama, once the shining lights of science and investigative broadcasting have tarnished reputations, and to be quite frank, are debateably now worth watching. When one orders salmon and is served tuna with assurances that it is salmon from the Tweed, the restaurant is accordingly marked!

I for one would like to hear Messrs. Hancock and Beauval in a lively debate with those bastions of paralysed thought who occupy chairs in so many of our archaic and self-protective Archeology (or is it Arch-tautology) departments. I would like to read the transcript of the interviews made for the Horizon programme in order to fairly (unlike the BBC/Horizon/Science Department) judge what actually happened in editing.

Kindly get with the programme on “openness”…

I look forward to the courtesy of a considered reply.

Yours sincerely

Paul M de Freitas
Managing Director
Capricorn South Limited

Sent: 19 November 2000 06:59

To Mr John Lynch (Creative Director of Science)

Dear Sir,

The biased, unfair and deliberately misleading portrayal of Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval’s work in the “Horizon-Atlantis Reborn” programme was indefensible. However, this is nothing compared to the attempts to censor the public dissemination of the evidence. The BBC’s legal proceedings to prevent the public access to the interview transcripts are a disgrace. What is the BBC afraid of, people learning just how misleading the programme makers were?

For a broadcaster with the BBC’s reputation for honest, unbiased and trustworthy reporting, this is shameful. Do the right thing, and make substantial revisions to the programme.

Yours sincerely,
Mark Philbin

From: Martin []
Sent: 18 November 2000 18:43
To: Mark Thompson; John Lynch;
Subject: Horizon

Dear sir,

Could you please tell me the BBC’s reasons for refusing Graham Hancock permission to print transcripts of an interview he gave the producers of Horizon.

If the BBC feels they have not misrepresented the man then what have they got to hide .

By refusing Mr. Hancock permission, it only adds to my suspicions that the BBC are not revealing the truth of the interview, and are therefore trying to manipulate the facts.

Surely allowing Mr. Hancock permission to print his own views cannot cause the BBC any harm, unless of course the interview proves misrepresentation by the corporation.

I await your response

yours sincerely

M Day

From: gcomber []
Sent: 18 November 2000 12:15
Subject: BBC Horizon; Atlantis Uncovered and Atlantis Reborn , 28 Oct and 4 NOV 1999

Dear Mr Lynch,

I have recently heard that the Broadcasting Standards Commission have considered the “Horizon” treatment of Messrs Hancock and Bauval to have been unfair with regard to the editing of their contributions to these programs, effectively trivialising their claims . As a previously avid viewer of “Horizon” , I was somewhat surprised and concerned that such obvious effort to counter the reasoned views of Messrs Hancock and Bauval was seemingly made , that a significant part of the two programs were devoted to this end.

Having also heard that the BBC intended response is to edit the programs “a teeny bit”in respect of the contributions of Messrs Hancock and Bauval , I must say that I cannot conceive that “teeny” editing changes could redress the unbalance created by the original presentations.

Many people who saw the original programs will be watching for the BBC response and will be expecting to see an apology as well as fair treatment of the subject , which is a highly intriguing one.

yours sincerely
Gerald Comber

From: gcomber []
Sent: 17 November 2000 17:08
Subject: BBC Unfairness To Graham Hancock

John Lynch,

Just a follow up to say that considering the threats that have been made to Mr Graham Hancock on your behalf by the BSC solicitor, Paul Ferguson I for one will not watch the Horizon programme ever again. I will call upon others to do likewise.

The censorship, skulduggery and deception you have been supporting is totally unacceptable. I will retain an undieing comradeship with Mr Hancock & Mr Bauval on these matters. Their treatment has been very harsh and verging on dictatorship tactics.

The European Court may become interested in this case if you do not back down. These are E.U. citizens that you are attempting to suppress, so be aware of such facts.

I will be calling upon my many friends internationally to support Mr Hancock in his fight with you until justice is done.

Yours regretfully,

Julian Comber

From: Margaret King []
Sent: 18 November 2000 01:59
Subject: Horizon Atlantis Reborn

Come on you guys!

Stop acting like spoilt children having a tantrum because you’ve been found out doing something naughty. You are making an international laughing stock of yourselves and we don’t expect that sort of behaviour from the BBC – do we?

Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval and many more searchers of the truth, have millions of followers behind them and we have the right to demand a fair hearing for what has been proven to be and total injustice. Their theories may not fit in with the narrow-minded British ‘academic’ view of things and they may not have scientific degrees but they are offering an open-minded theory that many people believe could have been possible.

Our past is our heritage and we all have the right to be heard. The least you could do after having ‘doctored’ the original programme is to allow it’s re-broadcast in the way it should have been shown back in November 1999. Additionally you could allow an open forum so that a full discussion could take place.

Have you once considered the impact that such a programme could have on the viewing public? Properly advertised, everybody would want to watch it as the programme that has been making the news. There are people out here begging you to show us an interesting television programme. We all pay through the nose for the doubtful privilege of watching the BBC and we therefore have the right to demand to see the programmes that we want!

For God’s sake – WAKE UP TO THE REAL WORLD!!

(Keep up the good work, Graham and Robert, we’re right behind you!)

From: Brian Adamson []
Sent: 17 November 2000 11:41
Subject: Horizon

Dear Mr Lynch

There was a time when the BBC commanded respect, attention and even gratitude for the objective way in which they presented information, particularly that of a scientific nature, to the paying public )that is – those who are forced under threat of violence to pay for that which they may not even utilise).

Those times seem to have vanished along with reason and good judgement within the hallowed halls of Shepherds Bush.

I refer to the dogmatic, one-sided and heavy-handed ‘documentary’ that was ‘Atlantis Reborn’, presented initially around 12 months ago, and the arrogant, self-righteous and self-serving attitude that has prevailed towards Messrs Hancock and Bauval in the intervening months.

Is the BBC not a ‘service’ to the UK public? Does it not stand for objectivity and truth in scientific endeavour? Are the ‘experts’ of orthodoxy to go unchallenged in our exponential era of information and enlightenment?

It is disgusting enough that the editors of Horizon saw fit to denigrate two energetic, charismatic and intelligent investigators in such an appaling manner as to have deserved the citicism of the BSC. To further deny these gentlemen (for definition – see Oxford English dictionary – you may find the information instructive) the opportunity to engage in a serious debate with their detractors is tantamount to censorship on an outrageous scale. As a member of the public that finances your endeavours, I demand that you redress this appaling hypocrisy and give the very much maligned Messrs Hancock and Bauval the opportunity to restore their reputations in the full view of the unenlightened public in the same manner in which you sought to destroy them 12 months ago.

I trust that their is still some vestige of honour in residence at the BBC that will seek to restore the failing confidence of the public. If not, the BBC has become a very sorry institution indeed and I for one will not rest until wholesale change has redressed this appalling state of affairs.

Brian Adamson

From: Eugenia Loli []
Sent: 17 November 2000 11:20
Subject: BBC Horizon


I believe that the way Horizon treated Mr Hancock’s and Mr Bauval’s theories/opinions was not fair. The subject investigated in the series is a very sensitive matter for many people out there and the only thing you actually managed to do was that many people have lost faith to your documentaries/series and to BBC in general.


Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

From: Ron Bates []
Sent: 16 November 2000 19:14
Subject: Intellectual Freedom

I am not a supporter of Graham Hancock and his position. I am, however, very interested in this subject. It appears to me that based on the written record within his books and the dissonance to be found in the scientific community over radio-carbon dating that you would be anxious to give your experts the opportunity to challenge Mr. Hancock in an open and well ordered conversation.

Openness and transparency is the only way to bring light to a difficult subject and allow truth to prevail. Far more contentious interviews have been conducted on the BBC and on PBS that cover the volatile issues of recent creationism (ICR) and the young earth. The issues of Bosnia and the Serbs is far more intense and important that letting some scientific types make their positions known to an interested audience. For the BBC to exercise the position of editing free debate is the very reason that the BBC and main stream world wide commercial media will be eventually relegated to the position of second choice as content delivery mechanisms. The world wide web has no editors and there transparency is power. Should this type of unresponsiveness, censorship and unwillingness to test the truth of a societal position continue, we in the Colonies will have to ask for a “hand count”.

I am sure you would like to end this issue without resorting to “editorship” and “censorship” and are fully interested in the free flow of idea’s in the marketplace of scientific and peed-scientific exploration.


Ron Bates

From: []
Sent: 16 November 2000 15:20
Subject: Atlantis Reborn

Dear Mr. Lynch & Mr. Thompson,

We are extremely disappointed with the BBC’s lack of attempt to clarify a mishandled situation. Having personally researched Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval’s Giza-Orion Correlation Theory there is a misrepresentation of the evidence broadcasted by the BBC. Why? What is there to be achieved by editing away crucial information for the public to make up its own miind? The dark ages have passed. This is the information age and the public has access to information and can prove your error. Doesn’t that make you feel foolish?

Please reconsider the request of a live debate, permission to publish the full transcript and include the testimonies of Professor Roy and Dr. Seymour. This kind of information released by the BBC can only be a credit to you as your wish to be a broadcasting medium on the leading edge of new developments.

Thank you for taking the time to read this email. We do believe in your hearts you know the right thing to do.


JD & Douglas Davy

From: Emmon Durran [“Emmon_Durran”]
Sent: 15 November 2000 20:03
Subject: Graham Hancock

To the BBC,

As a regular viewer of Horizon, I am shocked that the BBC is ordering Graham Hancock to remove unedited transcripts of the Horizon interview from his website.

Horizon is a Science program, albeit with a dramatic presentation.

Whether an opinion is accepted, denied, criticized, doubted or exaggerated, it is still an opinion. If it has been stated for the purpose of presentation, and it is possible to present it, then let it be presented.

Hiding information, whether it be deemed beneficial or not, is an act of a closed mind. History repeatedly proves this. From information we learn, even if we make mistakes first. If the BBC truly believes it’s document is an honest representation of the meeting with Graham Hancock, then why should they block his presentation of that meeting.

I don’t want to hear about copyright or other such blatant issue avoiding strategies. Yet I know that just as sure as a cornered animal will turn to violence, so an industry will turn to their lawyers.

I would like to see a face to face meeting of both sides of the issue. If you were to choose any ten conflicts which recently occurred, whereby one party refused to talk, it would be generally accepted that the majority of the ‘silent parties’ are the guilty party or at the very least preventing and honest inquiry into a situation.

Value his opinion even if it differs from yours.
Value criticism. When it’s right, you stand to learn.
Value the initial trust at the outset of the agreement.
Value the opinions of people who have bothered to make a comment.

From the information I have found through a little research, the BBC does seem to be acting in a very unfair and heavy handed manner.

Forget the conflict and look at it objectively. Ask your spouses for their opinions and see how they vary from your own.

Yours hopefully,

Eamon Durran

From: Julian Leigh []
Sent: 15 November 2000 16:47
To: Mark Thompson; John Lynch
Cc: Horizon Comments
Subject: Atlantis Reborn

Dear Mr Thompson and Mr Lynch,

I understand that either the mail you received after you broadcast Atlantis reborn, or the recent BSC findings about parts of the programme, have prompted you to re-broadcast the programme with some slight alterations. I understand that the ‘injured’ parties requested a live discussion after the re-broadcast and also asked that you should include the parts of your interviews with them which you cut from the original programme. They have also asked for comments from eminent astronomers on the Giza-Orion Correlation Theory to be aired.

Is it true that you will not be including these items in your new programme? I take it from the fact that you are raising the subject again, that firstly, you are genuinely interested in the theories covered and secondly, that you now wish to correct any misapprehensions or otherwise that viewers may have been under after your first programme. If this is the case, and I hope it is, you would wish to find the time to do the job properly and allow me, and no doubt the other viewers make up our own minds based on a balanced and fair hearing of both sides of the debate. Please don’t leave me with the awful feeling that once again the BBC and a reputable programme like Horizon can’t take fair criticism and properly put the wrong to right.

Yours hopefully,
Julian Leigh

From: Nostradamus []
Sent: 15 November 2000 13:55
Subject: Horizon

Dear BBC.

Contrary to the false impressions put out by Mr Hancock, not all viewers of the Horizon programme agree with him. So herewith an e-mail of support for the general theme of the programme.

Whilst I would love to find that Atlantis existed, and that Aliens helped build the pyramids, at present the facts do not support these ideas. Certainly one can surmise or guess but what is needed is proof – and Hancock and others seem to be unable to give this.

It is right that ‘alternative’ theories are investigated, and I fully support the right of Horizon to do this. However one should always be aware that so much can be taken out of context, or simply ‘edited’ carefully to give different inferences from that originally expressed. (I should know, I was MGM Films Ltd editor in the UK back in the early 1970’s and worked on ‘Chariot of the Gods…)

So I look forward to the repeated programme, after all I cannot remember the original fully.



p.s. How about a Horizon on ‘Forbidden Archaeology’?

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

From: Nigel Skinner-Simpson []
Sent: 15 November 2000 12:32
Subject: Horizon – Atlantis Reborn

Dear Sirs,

I very much enjoyed the original transmission of the two-part Horizon programme “Atlantis Reborn”. I understand that it is to be retransmitted in December following some minor changes required by a BSC adjudication. I understand from postings made by Graham Hancock to various lists that you have rejected his idea for a studio discussion following the retransmission of the programme in December. I consider this to be a great shame because it would present an ideal opportunity for Hancock (& Bauval?) to debate with their critics so that interested people like myself could better form an opinion on the validity of their theories.

For what it is worth, I take an “orthodox” viewpoint regarding such matters as the construction and purpose of the pyramids of Giza and am not at all convinced about the existence of Atlantis or Hancock’s lost civilisation. That said, an alternative viewpoint which seems far-fetched may uncover some elements that have not previously been considered and so can ultimately end up adding to the orthodox viewpoint even though the main thrust of the alternative viewpoint is invalid. It would be interesting to see what would come out of a discussion between Hancock and his detractors.

I do hope you will think again about allowing some form of studio discussion to take place. If you need a studio audience, count me in!

Best wishes,
Nigel Skinner-Simpson

Sent: 15 November 2000 09:27
Subject: Atlantis Reborn

Dear BBC,

It has come to my attention that you are breaking your policies. I am asking you to reconsider your position regarding the airing of Atlantis Reborn. It appears you are opting to present a very skewed version of this controversial piece in favor of the skeptics. I find it sad that you would use your position of power to selectively edit the work of two fine authors as Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval.

Where would this world be if we never explored the unknown or unpopular theories? Please do the right thing, allow the world to grow through freedom of speech.

Colleen Marshall
Planetary Activation Organization
Maui, Hawaii

From: mark grant []
Sent: 15 November 2000 06:13
Subject: Please explain . . .

subject:”38″ = BBC censorship?

hello, I have recently learned that the BBC has refused to allow graham hancock to publish the original transcript of an interview between himself and the BBC that was used for the BBC’s airing of a show called Atlantis Reborn, originally aired in 1999. (url for part one is –

As many know, this presentation of Hancock and Bauval’s position on this show was met with considerable controversy. It is clear that the BBC used its editing and presentation skills to paint a far-less-than-flattering picture of Mr. Hancock, whom they portrayed as a short-tempered air-headed mystic in part 2 of this program.

Given all the energy spent on advertising, spin-doctoring and the like, it would be naive for any reasonable person in this day and age to assume that those involved in the production of this show were not aware of the effects they were creating. That’s pretty slimey , but other matters raised in conjunction with this presentation call to mind even more serious issues. I’ll start with my own conclusion: Either the producers of this Atlantis Reborn didn’t really know what the subject-matter they were reporting on, or they resorted to yellow journalism of the worst order.

Anyone reasonably familiar with the eividence presented by Hancock and Bauval would know in an instant that your presentation of their positions was partial at best. To cite the most obvious point, the pyramid/belt stars/Orion correlation theory is part of a much larger, highly compelling mosaic – and it is the preponderance of this evidence which tends to strongly support the astounding implications therein. To criticise only a part of the overall theory in the manner which you did, for the sake of ridiculing the overall theory, repeatedly, reveals low-level ignorance or the same kind of partisanship that makes me what to turn off the tube every time I find myself forced to listen to a politician making some sort of bogus policy statement.

For example, on the matter of the erosion of the Sphinx:

“It has been argued by Hancock and others that the erosion was caused by heavy rainfall and that this means the Sphinx must have been carved many thousands of years earlier than we thought, when the climate was wetter. But the erosion argument has not stood up to the scrutiny of geologists. Erosion on the Giza plateau does not depend on water.”

What about the conference of American geologists who, in the early 1990s, when this idea was first presented by one John Anthony West, said that the water erosion theory was based on good science?

“There are more than 16 stars in Orion. Robert Bauval originally argued that two other pyramids also matched stars, but a simple test shows that there is no fit. There are more than 80 pyramids in Egypt and 29 within a 30-mile radius of Giza.”

Did the narrator making this comment even read Bauval and Hancock’s books? To the narrator one who had might ask the following questions. How many of those pyramids were built during the dynasties which H and B are basing their theory on? How many dynastic periods are we talking about and which dynasties are we talking about? Finally, how do H and B address the now-old matter – brought up by themselves, by the way – that the Giza project, if it was a star correlation project, was never finished? I’ll bet a pound that none of the people receiving this letter know the answer to any two of those questions. Yet between you, you decide to let the whole matter go unaddressed, to leave things as they are. Tsk, tsk…

Your one-sided rebuttal to Hancock’s Antarctica theory went like this…

“Geologists have studied the history of Antarctica through ice-cores, some as deep as 3 1/2 kilometres. Ice-cores are like tree rings and they can be used to work out the history of the ice-sheets. The scientists’ work shows clearly that the ice has been here for over 400,000 years. It would have been hard to survive here in 10,500BC let alone create a sophisticated civilisation.”

Evidently you should have begun this statement by saying, “Some geologists”. What about those geologists apparently support the notion that the Antarctica’s ice cap as young as Hancock placed in Fingerprints?

I am not disuputing that Hancock and Bauval’s critics have valid points. I readily admit that it may be possible that they may ultimately prove be right. The simple point here is that those who have taken the time to follow the example of (your apparent poster boy) Ed Krupp, to explore your counter-assertions and see if they “hold up”, find that THERE REMAIN AN ABUNDANCE OF EQUALLY QUALIFIED SCIENTISTS AND AUTHORITIES WHO STILL SUPPORT HANCOCK AND BAUVAL.

Given the gravity of what’s being challenged, – no less than our historical genesis – clearly this is a topic that deserves a far more comprehensive presentation than the one you gave in your superficial and wickedly rhetorical “Atlantis Reborn” presentation. Why then, won’t you give Hancock and his allies the chance to defend themselves on this matter?

My feeling is that the people involved in this decision really don’t know much about the subject matter that is being dealt with here, and that this, coupled with their busy schedules, makes them inclined to trivialize it. However, this is just a feeling. I, for one, would really like to know what your justtification is for not allowing this matter to be debated in a more thorough manner. Please enlighten me, so that I can be corrected if need be.

And I now learn that you wish to prevent Graham Hancock from making public his copy of the original conversation he had with the BBC – the one that was diced and sliced in the Atlantis Reborn series. Hancock’s position seems fair enough. He simply wants to give the public something to compare the edited version with. May I also enquire as to why the BBC is apparently unwilling to allow him to publish the original? Please don’t disappoint me with a purely legalistic explanation – when abused, there really is no correlation between legal rights and moral ones.

Frankly, in the absence of a satisfactory answer to this question, it certainly seems like the BBC has something to hide.

mark grant
victoria, canada

From: Brian Clarke []
Sent: 15 November 2000 04:55
Subject: Horizons Program

Dear Mr. Lynch,

I can still remember as a young boy growing up on the island of Barbados some 35 to 40 years ago dropping off to sleep each night with the sounds of the BBC World Service Radio Newsreel or the sounds of a BBC radio play coming from the living room. My father was a BBC addict who tuned in each night and loudly and widely proclaimed his faith in the BBC as being the best and most objective source of news in the world. His words made an impression on me as a youngster and up to know I have always held the BBC in high regard and thought of it as exemplifying objectivity and fairness in news reporting and an English sense of fair play.

Sadly, this is no longer the case. I am disgusted at your brazen unfairness and incivility as you attempt to sweep under the rug the truth regarding your shoddy treatment of Mr. Hancock and Mr. Bauval and their theories in your Horizon program. If you had any sense of decency at all, you would take seriously some of Mr. Hancock’s proposed changes in the Horizon program so that he and Mr. Bauval have a fair and reasonable opportunity to adequately support their arguments. Instead, you appear to be doing your best to censor Mr. Hancock and Mr. Bauval and to keep them from using credible, knowledgeable witnesses in their defense. You are also apparently bent on ensuring that if at all possible you can harass Mr. Hancock into removing from his website the transcripts of the program interviews and refusing him permission to publish these interviews in his books.

When I see the lengths to which the BBC is apparently willing to go to ensure that Mr. Hancock and Bauval do not get a fair hearing by the public, it shakes my confidence in the BBC to a much greater extent than it shakes my confidence in either Mr. Hancock or Mr. Bauval. It only causes me to wonder if at some point in the future we might not have the mighty BBC making a shamefaced and abject apology to the world that the heretical historians it tried so hard to figuratively “burn at the stake” were right all along. Hopefully, should this be the case, it won’t take the BBC 400 years to admit they have made a mistake.

Yours truly

Brian Clarke
1 Rowntree Rd
Apt 409
Etobicoke, On
M9V 5G7

From: Allene G. Keller []
Sent: 13 November 2000 23:51
Subject: (no subject)

Dear Mr. Lynch: BBC isn’t seen much in the USA, but I have ordered videos from you several times. I have always been impressed by their quality. However, I am disappointed in how you have treated Mr. Graham Hancock. He is one of my favorite authors and I have all of his books. Since he has sold over 5 million books which have been translated into 27 languages, lots of other people must feel the same as I do. Please give him a chance to state his case in Atlantis Reborn or else give him a chance to debate the issues in a later program. 5 million people can’t all be “kooks”, in fact I think maybe the world is beginning to wake up to how much church and state have clouded the minds of the people. The Catholic church tried that in the Middle Ages. It didn’t work then, it won’t work now! I think you at BBC will have to open your minds and join our 5 million or someday you are going to be very embarassed. I’m going to send some information about a new discovery to Mr Mark Thompson, please be sure to take a look at it.

Thanks for listening. Allene Keller, author of “In the Image of the Gods”,

From: Mark Scurry []
Sent: 13 November 2000 21:14
Subject: Atlantis Reborn rescreening


I’ve recently read that the BBC have decided to rescreen the “Atlantis Reborn” documentary, after an independent tribunal found the program was unfair to Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval. I have just read the full transcripts of their original interviews, and can fully understand their frustration and anger at having their objective and reasoned arguments edited out, and then having their theories ridiculed with no avenue for response given to them. The hatchet job that was performed on them was an absolute disgrace, a sickeningly unfair piece of censhorship, it’s astonishing that a reputable body such as the BBC would stoop to such a undignified level.

Now with a rescreening scheduled to take place, I sincerely hope in this instance the powers that be at the BBC realise that it’s only fair that this time Hancock and Bauval are given time to explain their theories in detail, and answer their critics face-to-face. By this I mean instead of having Ed Krupp present his argument with no response by Hancock or Bauval, to make it look like they don’t have an answer, have Hancock and Bauval sitting opposite him, so that every statement he makes can be responded to. This would settle once and for all whether their theories are valid, or is the BBC worried that these “authorities” will be the ones made to look foolish, without the aid of editing.

I can only add that contrary to what TV executives think, viewers are NOT stupid, we can see through deception, and you can rest assured if the second showing of “Atlantis Reborn” is as biased and prejudicial as the first more responses will be forthcoming, and I personally will find other things to do besides watching BBC documentaries. Especially if I know the contents are questionable.

Yours Sincerely
Mark Scurry

From: Albert Gaulden []
Sent: 13 November 2000 20:34
Subject: Fingerprints of the Gods

Dear Sirs:

There is absolutely no reason to censor Fingerprints of the Gods. Please do not allow yourselves to decide what we should not see based upon your biases.


Albert Clayton Gaulden
author, Clearing for the Millennium (Warner Books, 1997)
Creator and founding Director, The Sedona Intensive
P.O. Box 2309
Sedona, AZ 86339-2309
(520) 282-4723

Sent: 13 November 2000 19:47
Subject: Atlantis Reborn ‘scandal’

to whom it may concern

I would just like to voice my concern, and disgust, at your recent mistreatment of Messrs Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval.

How can you masquerade Horizon as a scientific programme when you ignore the the fundamentals of science, not to mention broadcasting standards. Your decision to implement only minor changes for the re-showing of Atlantis Reborn is farcical and your unwillingness to allow them to face their accusers in an open debate seems to me that you are as guilty as the modern academic community in preserving the status quo and thus holding back progress in the field of ‘alternative’ history.

It would also be appropriate if you issued an apology to both Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval for:
1 your gross misrepresentation of the facts
2 the damage you may have done to their reputations and ultimately their work

It is my intention to send you this e-mail once a week until an acceptable apology has been made

Sent: 13 November 2000 17:46
Subject: Horizon – ‘Atlantis Reborn’

Dear Sirs,

I have always considered the BBC to represent only the finest qualities of public broadcasting.

In my many years living abroad… the BBC and the BBC World Service have always been a bastion of truth and objectivity… and as long as I have had access to either… I have felt comfortably close to a trusted resource.

Last year, I watched your Horizon special(s) ‘Atlantis Reborn’… and although the conclusions were critical of the subject… I assumed they were based on scrupulous research and an objective interpretation of the results, and as such I accepted the Horizon judgement.

With the results of the BSC adjudication now available… it transpires that this was not the case, and if anything… the Horizon programme did little more than rubbish both a valid and convincing alternative theory of ancient human history… preferring instead to defend the current and increasingly untenable paradigm.

Now that Horizon has been criticised by the BSC for being somewhat less than fair with the editing of the programme, including the highly controversial removal of academic support for the theory… I would like you to reassure me that Graham Hancock, Robert Bauval, Professor Roy and Dr Seymour will be allowed to respond accordingly and with an appropriate forum.

Yours faithfully,

Kevin Haynes
Jansveld 43
Utrecht 3512 BE
The Netherlands

email :

===  E U R O N E X T    D I S C L A I M E R  ===

This e-mail is solely intended for use by the person or persons to whom it is addressed, as stated on this page, and may contain personal and/or confidential information. Please notify us immediately if you are not the person to whom the e-mail is addressed. Any dissemination, duplication, publication to third parties or other use of the contents of this e-mail is forbidden. Although this information has been compiled with great care, neither Euronext nor the exchanges or companies it operates shall accept any responsibility for any errors, omissions or other inaccuracies in this information or for the consequences thereof, nor shall it be bound in any way by the contents of this e-mail. In the event of incomplete or incorrect transmission please return the e-mail to the sender.

From: Paul Peroni []
Sent: 13 November 2000 16:17
Subject: Additional Support For Graham

Dear John,

I for one find the new theories and discoveries of Graham to be most enlightening. Furthermore, I think that these new findings and theories presented by Graham, offer a refreshing perspective to orthodox belief.

I do not find Graham’s work in anyway intrusive and I encourage the evolution of knowledge and education from what we have today. I wish it to be known that myself and several others to whom I have spoken, believe that Grahams efforts should not be censored and left for anyone and everyone to make up their own mind’s as to what they wish to believe. After all, we are living in a society which is suppose to offer freedom of speech to each and everyone of us.

I strongly urge in favor of Graham and kindly ask that The full transcripts be allowed for publication.

Your sincerely

Paul Peroni.

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

Sent: 13 November 2000 16:03
Subject: With Respect, Sirs

Mr Thompson & Mr. Lynch:

If you would be so kind to accept the expedience of this form of communication, I would like to remind you of how high a regard that I and many people around the world have for the BBC. In keeping with the tradition of high-mindedness and and comprehensiveness of the work of the BBC over the decades, I would ask that you again consider the points put forth in the below e-mail that I have received from Mr. Graham Hancock. His requests would seem to be neither a burden nor a departure that would develop traffic away from customary avenues of a fairness.

I hope you and the BBC Continue to do great works for the radio audience around the world for the ordinary listeners like myself.



>From: "Sharif Sakr" <>
>Reply-To: "Sharif Sakr" <>
>To: <>
>Subject: [hancock] From Graham Hancock
>Date: Sat, 11 Nov 2000 14:54:42 -0000
>Dear Reader,
>     In a recent article in the Independent newspaper ("Horizon censured 
>unfair treatment", you can read it at the BBC
>declared its intention to make only "teeny" alterations to their programme,
>"Atlantis Reborn", which was judged unfair by the Broadcasting Standards
>     I gather from this that in addition to refusing my requests for a live
>debate and for permission to publish the full transcripts of the Horizon
>interview, the BBC are also refusing to implement the basic changes Robert
>Bauval and I requested, and which are essential if the revised programme is
>to put right any of the damage the BBC unfairly caused to our reputations.
>     The single most important point we wish to drive home is the need for
>the  BBC to include the testimonies of two eminent astronomers, Professor
>Roy of Glasgow Univeristy and Dr Seymour of the University of Plymouth, who
>support the Giza-Orion Correlation Theory (see "Robert Bauval's Statement"
>     More than a year after the original broadcast I want to declare loudly
>and clearly AND ON THE RECORD here that we do not regard it as sufficient
>(although it is certainly necessary!) for the BBC merely to reinstate the
>rebuttals that we both gave them on camera and which they unfairly
>suppressed in the 4 November 1999 broadcast of "Atlantis Reborn". Rather as
>in a court of law, where this may yet end up, we feel that it is contrary 
>natural justice, and maliciously damaging to us, for the "prosecution" (BBC
>Horizon) to present an expert witness (Dr Krupp) without the "defence" (us)
>being allowed to present an expert witness (Professor Roy or Dr Seymour) in
>     We have learnt that the BBC is so self-satisfied, arrogant and remote
>ordinary people that it only responds when it is forced to do so -- and
>never willingly, openly, generously or decently. We therefore feel it is
>essential the BBC must be made aware that at least the visitors to this
>website are watching them and calling them to account.
>     For those who are kind enough to help us remind the BBC of its
>to the public, and ultimately make a stand for fairness in broadcasting and
>in general, please
>visit our site ( to learn more about our battle with
>the BBC, and write to the BBC with your comments/suggestions.  Emails 
>be sent to John Lynch, Creative Director of Science [] 
>Mark Thompson, Director of Television [].  Please
>also copy any mails to us at
>     I would like to thank once more all of those who have supported me
>this difficult time - I really hope that we can make a difference.
>Warmest Regards,
>Graham Hancock
>To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to
>with a message of "unsubscribe hancock-announce". Trouble? Contact 

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

Sent: 13 November 2000 14:34
Subject: Atlantis Reborn

Mr Lynch,

as the creative director of science I appeal to your scientific nature to help change a biased and rather unpleasant documentary into one based on science and impartiality. I was shocked when I saw the documentary last year, shocked initially as to the general attitude of Mr Hancock and his apparent ‘findings’. However, after searching into the matter and seeing the website and reading the transcripts of interviews with him by the BBC, I am even more shocked that the BBC can resort to such cheap tactics in order to taint the public’s impression of Mr Hancock.

The complaints authority have told you that the programme was ‘unfair’ and yet still there is no movement to change the documentary as requested by Mr Hancock, and indeed to bring it into line of a proper unbiased documentary, something that the BBC usually do I believe. What on earth possesed the BBC to write such a one-sided piece of drivel in the first place ? What on earth could have been gained, apart from lowering the general public’s opinion of the great corporation. The saddest thing seems to be the way in which both Mr Hancock and Buval both seemed to be excited about the original documentary, and both seemed to utterly trust the impartiality of the producers – what suckers.

Is there any intention of the BBC to put right this injustice, or will they continue to hide behind the ‘Big Corporation’ tag and walk all over these two men ?

Please can you get back to me explaining why this happened, and what is being done to resolve this ?


Sent: 13 November 2000 14:19
Subject: Lack of flexibility

Mr Thompson,

not wishing to sound too rude or agressive I do find the BBC’s current position of making ‘tiny’ changes to the ‘unfair’ documentary they broadcast last year to be a little pathetic. I’ve never had the need to complain to the BBC about any of their work prior to this, and feel as though I’m attacking an old friend, but the inflexibility shown is bordering on the paranoid – what do you have to fear ?

I honestly believed that the BBC was supposed to be honest and fair and ‘straight down the middle’ in terms of the way it broadcasts its shows, especially supposedly ‘scientific’ documentaries, but the documentary in question (Atlantis Reborn) was such an utter pile of biased drivel that I’m surprised you were allowed to show it. I’m certainly not surprised that the Complaints people showed the show to have been unfair.

I had no idea that the BBC considers itself to be the broadcaster of only their version of history rather than the broadaster of all the various arguments surporting versions of history, allowing intelligent people to make up their own minds. Far be it from the corporation to stoop to the concepts of creating programmes to confirm the producer’s own beliefs, but if thats what you guys feel you need to do to protect the British Public then DONT. It is not your job to babysit the masses, nor is it your job to provide us with the sort of ‘the earth is flat and heres the proof’ documentaries – its your job to inform, so I suggest that you do just that.

I’m still at a loss as to what you hope to gain from being so ‘oh look at us, we such a Big Corporation, we can do what we want’ – perhaps you could enlighten me.

best regards

From: FJackson []
Sent: 13 November 2000 12:17
Subject: Legal action recommended
Importance: High

As a licence payer, I was one of the many people shocked, saddened and annoyed to witness the disgraceful portrayal of Hancock and Bauval by the Horizon program in the 4 November 1999 broadcast of “Atlantis Reborn”, and am certainly relieved to find that the Broadcasting Standards Commission have recently found in their favour.

However, I am further disappointed to hear that the BBC do not intend to rectify their blatant bias and offer the Hancock and Bauval the opportunity to present their theories in full, as well as the testimony of the professional astronomers who advocate their theories.

Beyond a shadow of a doubt, the damage done to their credibility and professional reputations (not to forget the emotional turmoil) by the Horizon Program can be financially quantified in lost book sales and perhaps other funding. I sincerely hope that they take legal steps to attain compensation for lost earnings etc. if they are not, at a minimum, afforded the opportunity to address the attack on their reputations in a full length program. Personally, I would be inclined to take legal action anyway, as that may be the only way of preventing other researchers in any arena, being portrayed in the disgracefully prejudicial manner the Horizon displayed. I look forward to following developments closely.

Francine Jackson

From: Renee & Don []
Sent: 13 November 2000 06:43
Subject: copy of message sent to Mark Thompson and John Lynch, BBC.

The Broadcasting Standards Commission’s findings of unfairness in your censored broadcast of “Atlantis Reborn” have resulted in an agreement to broadcast a revised version on 14 December next. Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval should be given every opportunity to explain in full their reasons for the correlation between the Giza pyramids layout and the Orion constellation and also the not so well-known facts about carbon dating and its unsuitability for estimating inorganic archeological finds.

Additional support for the correlation theory should be provided on the programme in the form of interviews with astronomers Dr. Seymour of Plymouth University and Professor Roy of Glasgow University.

It seems to me that the only reason you have tried to discredit the unorthodox views of Graham Hancock is the fact that he is a writer not a scientist. Why should not thinking intelligent people such as Hancock and Bauval advance convincing theories after years of study and research and yet be ridiculed by narrow-minded single subject “experts” in the fields they have covered?

Don Bull, Torbay, Auckland NZ

From: Q-Productions []
Sent: 13 November 2000 04:47
Subject: Graham Hancock & Robert Bauval

Please hear out Graham and Robert. These gentlemen are doing a tremendous service for humanity–a service which I believe the BBC is unnecessarily hindering.

Quinton Carlson
Portland, Oregon, USA

From: stephen.williamson4 []
Sent: 13 November 2000 01:57
Subject: BBC Horizion Decision

To: John Lynch, Creative Director of Science BBC,
Mark Thompson, Director of Television BBC.

Dear sirs,

As a longtime supporter of the BBC in a time when it is increasingly under attack, I was somewhat shocked when i watched your Horizion ‘Atlantis Reborn’ programme. I found that as someone who is intimately familar with both sides of the research under discussion it was more than alarming to watch such a one-sided hatchet job.

The BBC above all other broadcasters has a reputation for fairplay and scientific balance in your programmes, and it was with this in mind that I patiently followed the complaints process launched by the author Graham Hancock regarding the programme. I was in no doubt that the glaring misrepresentations would be admitted to and corrected and so was not surprised when the Braodcasting Standards Commission recently judged the programme to be ‘in part’ unfair.

The most offensive aspect of the programme was no doubt the inclusion of expert testimony against Hancock’s theory and the exclusion of expert testimony in favour of it, namely the views of Professor Roy of Glasgow Univeristy and Dr Seymour of the University of Plymouth. To discover that the new re-edited version of the programme will not rectify this huge imbalance leaves me wondering what the point of the new re-edited version is. Is it merely to keep the BSC happy? Is the BBC so reluctant to admit errors?

Furthermore the refusal to allow Hancock to publish the full transcripts of the relevant interviews is arrogance in the extreme! How much can there be to hide?

The public is now forced to view all future BBC scientific programmes with suspicion in the knowledge that the BBC does indeed commission hatchet jobs and that even in the face of a BSC ruling, it will attempt to continue with the deception!

I also feel that Hancocks suggestion of a live debate between the opposing scientific parties, to follow the rebroadcast would be a supreme gesture by the BBC in restoring its shattered reputation with the public. In the light of what i have already said though, i suspect that this will be extremely unlikely and that we will be treated to nothing more than a carefully re-edited programme in such a way that the imbalance will have been corrected in no way whatsoever.

Nothing would satisfy me more than a reply which proved that i have judged the BBC in error.

Thank-you for your time.

Steve Williamson.

From: Andrew West []
Sent: 12 November 2000 19:52
Subject: Atlantis Reborn

Dear all,

Having followed closely the series of events regarding the BBC ‘Horizon’ programme ‘Atlantis Reborn’, I would like to whole-heartedly offer my support to Mr Hancock in pursuing a fair public hearing. Also, I would like to express my sincere disappointment at the BBC’s bully-ish methods. Please would those involved take the opportunity straight away to redeem themselves by admitting to the underhand ways they have used and offer a responsible and mature conclusion to the programme so everyone can get on with their ancient civilisation-research/programme-making in peace. Let’s be professional, please.


Andrew West.

From: Simon Banton []
Sent: 12 November 2000 15:18
Subject: Broadcasting Standards/Horizon/Atlantis Reborn – a scientist enquires…

Dear Sirs,

I learn that Horizon and the BBC intend to rebroadcast Atlantis Reborn, as a result of the recent BSC adjudication, but will not allow Hancock and Bauval to introduce an expert witness to rebut the statements made by Dr Krupp in the original transmission. Instead, I understand that the intention is only to re-instate the rebuttals made by Hancock and Bauval which were filmed but not included in the programme.

As a scientist by education (physics, astronomy) I am astonished that the BBC does not see fit to allow the proper discussion of evidence by experts in the field, in its premier science programme.

Leaving aside for a moment the arguments over the original programme’s unbalanced representation of the arguments, surely it is desirable for any subsequent transmission to present the most up to date version of the situation and to advance the process of exploration by allowing a thorough analysis of the key points underpinning the theory?

If the opponents of the theory under discussion are allowed to present an expert witness (Dr Krupp) to address a vital point (the issue of the orientation of the Giza monuments with respect to the constellation of Orion), then why on earth are the proponents denied the same opportunity? Since there are members of the academic community (Prof Roy and Dr Seymour) prepared to argue that the correlation exists – why will you not let them do so?

I am fascinated by the cultural and scientific implications that the Giza-Orion correlation theory presents, but I find I am now unable to turn to a source that I have previously trusted to be impartial in its presentation of information (the BBC) because I am aware of the BBC’s refusal to behave in a responsible manner on this matter.

I find myself wondering exactly what the BBC is afraid of, in doing so? I cannot imagine what kind of hidden agenda would be required to prevent the proper airing of this discussion.

Perhaps you will be able to explain the rationale behind the decision to me, and so I eagerly look forward to your reply.

Yours faithfully,
Simon Banton
B.Sc. A.R.C.S.

From: Richard Bagnall []
Sent: 12 November 2000 10:29
Subject: Atlantis Reborn

Dear Sirs

I am writing in support of Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval and their disagreement with your production Atlantis Reborn. I am not here to argue the finer points of discord as Graham and Robert have already put forward their arguments far more eloquently than I. However to purport the fact that your programme was an unbiased piece of journalism designed to uncover the truth behind the Atlantis mythos is an injustice to the history of the Horizon programme and the BBC in general, as well as an insult to Graham and Robert.

I understand the fact that you wish to defend your right to produce controversial programming especially in the present broadcasting clime and also wish to defend your production team and that is admirable. Why, however will you not let Graham and Robert have a fair say and reply to your programme directly? Especially with regard to the way that their views were edited in the programme that was broadcast, a fact that was plain to anyone who has either read any of their books or has been involved in journalism or TV production. In addition, the way in which the views of eminent scientists who supported aspects of their theories had been omitted from the finished programme, especially concerning the Orion – Giza correlation, is unforgivable.

A panel-based programme, as suggested by Graham Hancock with experts against and for both camps, if produced correctly, could be a very entertaining programme. Considering the sales of books by writers such as Graham and Robert surely it would also be an eagerly anticipated programme with a probable large audience share, not only in this country but across the globe.

I trust that you will listen to the views of the license payers who write to you as you do have a duty to at least consider their views and a duty to correct the injustice served on Graham and Robert.


Richard Bagnall

Sent: 12 November 2000 00:42
Subject: Re Atlantis Reborn

Dear Mr. Lynch,

I wish to add my voice to the widespread protest against your unprofessional treatment of Graham Hancock’s work in your television documentary. Your minimal response to the BSC’s findings of unfairness does you and the BBC no credit. It shows no respect respect for your audience whom you appear to regard as mental midgets.

There is absolutely nothing to be gained from the course you have chosen.

First, if Graham Hancock’s theories are wrong, they are not disproved by a grossly biassed analysis which only raises the suspicion that the proponents of the conventional wisdom are afraid their own arguments cannot stand the test of true debate.

Secondly, if his theories are (and are eventually proved to be) true, you are depriving your audience (notably those who are unfamiliar with the subject) of the potential benefits of a more accurate and interesting picture of the past than conventional theories and science have so far offered. (This has important ramifications for the scientific understanding of such phenomena as the last so-called ice age, which may just have been a side-effect of the sudden shifting of the North Pole from northern Canada to its present location. There is no other acceptable explanation for the frozen mammoths in Siberia.)

Thirdly, whether he is right or wrong, you do great harm to your own and the BBC’s reputation for intellectual honesty and fair reporting, as well as to the larger cause of the pursuit of truth wherever that search may lead.

Yours truly,

Peter Bailey

From: Wim Wylin []
Sent: 11 November 2000 19:10
Subject: re: “Atlantis reborn” really reborn?

I deeply deplore that the BBC TV (still an example for objective journalism?) will make only minimal changes to the double-program “Atlantis Reborn” (“Horizon”).

I’m still 25 years chief editor in the newsroom from VRT Radio (the public home service for the Flemish part of Belgium). I saw and use the script of the two “Horizon” programs for future colleagues as school-examples of prejudiced journalism. The makers of this programs had their “thesis” in mind before they started and all the collected material was selected and edited to proof that initial thesis (Bauval and Hancock are “pseudo-fascists” and so on). They had not the possibility to expose their theories and just one professor (never heard about him) can extensivily give his critics, without statements of reply.

If one of us here should make programs this way he/she should not only be blamed, but moved from the office, not tomorrow, but tonight!

It’s unbelievable that the BBC (wit such a great reputation of impartiality in the world) gives here the proof of the contrary. There is no right for reply: very essential in honoust journalism. You must not give the integral transcipts of the original texts of Bauval and Hancock (that should be a bad form of television program) but the essential parts. The BBC shows not only that she makes mistakes consciously (!!!!) but also, with a feeling of papal infallibility (“we are the best”, “we know everything best” and “we tell the thruth”), demonstrates to be a bad loser. It’s a shame for the public broadcasting company of Britain. I support Mr Hancock and Bauval and congratulate them for their independance in practicing science. The makers of “Atlantis Reborn” can learn much from them. They have such a subjective approach that they should not be useful at all here on the newsdesk. They refuse even a live debate after the rebroadcast of their program. Unbelievable. THAT remembers me of some periods in world history. The high standards of the BBC are, from now on, less a model for the rest of the world.

With regards.

Wim Wylin
chief editor VRT-radionieuwsdienst

From: I.M.U. Productions []
Sent: 11 November 2000 19:00
To: John Lynch, Creative Director of Science
Cc: Mark Thompson, Director of Television
Subject: “Atlantis Reborn”


To the attention of John Lynch and Mark Thompson,

Please do not regard it sufficient for the BBC to reinstate the rebuttals that Graham Hancock gave you on camera and which were suppressed in the 4 November 1999 broadcast of “Atlantis Reborn” to be just.

Allow expert witnesses Professor Roy of Glasgow University and/or Dr Seymour of the University of Plymouth, to present their views of the Giza-Orion Correlation Theory fairly, without creative editing of the program on your part, as you have presented your views with your expert witness Dr Krupp, thereby damaging Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval unjustly.

It would be fair to allow Graham Hancock’s requests for a live debate and permission to publish the full transcripts of the Horizon interview if the BBC continues to refuse implementation of the basic changes Robert Bauval and Graham Hancock requested in order to put right the damage the BBC unfairly caused to their reputations.

The BBC has an obligation to present fairness in broadcasting and should remember that we live in a day and age where suppression and media manipulation should not be the guidelines that a respected broadcast organization such as yourself should employ. All points of views should be presented without prejudice and should allow the viewers to make their own opinions based on all the information at hand not the edited version of “truth” as you see it.

Thank you for your consideration in this matter,

Cindy Tomlinson
I.M.U. Productions
Digital Sight & Sound Design

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."  -  Martin Luther King, Jr. 
I .  M .  U .    P  r  o  d  u  c  t  i  o  n  s
Tel: (604) 3 0 1 . 0 0 2 3  Fax (604) 3 0 1 . 0 0 2 6
I.M.U. Productions 37053 Gordon Park Vancouver, B.C. V5P 4W7

From: malcolm gregson []
Sent: 11 November 2000 17:16
Subject: Atlantis reborn debate

****** A copy of the e-mail below has been sent to the BBC ******

Dear sir/madam,

I write as a disollutioned fan of the BBC`s education programs; In my opinion I think that it should only be fair to `air` both sides of ANY argument, wether it be to prove or disprove any new theory regarding the history of the sciences.

I write this in response of the news that you (the BBC) are not willing to broadcast the full interview between yourselves and graham hancock (atlantis reborn program),nor give opportunity for a `live` debate to be screened so that the viewers can hear `BOTH` sides of the issue from scholars such as graham hancock, robert bauval (new theory relevations and unorthodox), and the view of learned professors in the subject (orthodox)…

I personally think that this would be a very interesting debate and one which would draw a huge audience.

Again, I ask that you be fair and objective when it comes to such issues and only screen programs of this nature that are `fair` and to broadcast `both` sides of any debate/argument without editing out any information that you should know to be of major relevence to the subject in question.

Yours Thankfully,
Malcolm Gregson.

Sent: 11 November 2000 17:27

Dear BBC and to whom it may concern,

I am not a card-carrying “Grahaminite” or a rank-and-file Bauvalian. (Here it comes) HOWEVER, there is a definite “spin” to your portrayal of what they suggest. I do not believe everything they say in a lock-step manner, BUT I DO NOT DISCOUNT IT. Your portrayal of their theories was not “down the middle” or even in the vicinity of it. I used to hear the words BBC and I would think that it was good “old-school” journalism that seperated editorial spins from reporting, and this reputation in the U.S. is what painted the afformentioned more as thrill seeking sensationalists than the researchers they really are. They obviously have an audience (hence their book sales), and they are clearly trying to make a living and have a passion towards what they are doing–all which cannot be held against them of course. The damage you have done to them–not blantantly but skillfully–with your reputation is painted them as fringe-group cosmo-quacks. PLEASE rework/update the material you aired and do so with the reputation that preceded you. The best thing about all of this is that you do not have to “cater to Graham,” but you only have to do your journalistic job without pride or prejudice. I believe that they would gladly work with you and the whole mess could be resolved if you could professionally come out and say, “Yes, we started it with our representation of their theories, so we will rework it and move on.” It’s the old “you go their way some and they will go yours.” Otherwise you will come off as a snickety “old-school” good ol’ boys club vs an “old-school” broadcasting/jornalism/reporting company in a good scholarly tradition and sense. Please consider the power of the word of mouth in the U.S., and note the diversity of Hancock’s audience evidenced from the author of this letter.

Lieutenant Clarence R. Johnson III
California, U.S.A.
United States Marines Corps

From: harry.wj []
Sent: 11 November 2000 17:06
Subject: Horizon ensured for unfair treatment

Dear Mr Lynch,

I am appalled and a little perturbed by the recent developments concerning the “Atlantis Reborn” broadcast of Horizon last year, in which Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval were grossly misrepresented. A recent Broadcasting Standards Commission ruling found in favour of Messrs Hancock and Bauval following their accusations on the Horizon team of giving the viewing public an unfair and biased view of former’s theories on an long lost, advanced civilisation unknown to modern history.

I wish to add my weight to Hancock and Bauval’s appeal to you to include in the re-showing of “Atlantis Reborn” on Dec 14 2000 a) the testimonies of two eminent astronomers, Professor Roy of Glasgow University and Dr Seymour of the University of Plymouth, who both support the Giza-Orion Correlation Theory, b) to broadcast a live debate on the programme’s subject matter between Hancock and Bauval and the experts featured in the original “Atlantis Reborn”, and c) for permission for Mr Hancock to publish the full transcripts of the Horizon interview. In view of the BBC’s commitment to impartiality and quality broadcasting these are not unfair and perfectly feasible requests.

My perturbation is founded on the differences between BBC programme makers. A few years ago the BBC broadcast “The Great Pyramid – Gateway To The Stars”, a very similar programme in nature to “Atlantis reborn”s. This programme shone with freshness and fair reporting, and faithfully reproduced on film what, primarily, Robert Bauval wrote on paper. What has happened to BBC Science, or whatever department deals with such subjects, that “Atlantis Reborn” – an blatant hatchet-job on Graham Hancock – should be made?

I have seen both Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval speak and give presentations of their work, and have also met and spoken briefly with them. Both men are meticulous, pioneering scholars, but more than that demonstrate a spirit of objectivity and open-mindedness few researchers have. Underlying their obvious academic prowess, each have a strong moral and deeply ethical foundation for their work which is constantly nurtured by the philosophy of the ancients they continue to uncover. In these dark days please, Mr lynch, help a little more light shine through.

Please reconsider your judgement on the “Atlantis Reborn” revisions and the other reasonable requests recently made by Hancock and Bauval, and allow the spirit of fairness to reign once more.


Harry Young

From: Martin []
Sent: 11 November 2000 16:17
To: Mark Thompson; John Lynch;
Subject: Atlantis Reborn

Dear Sir,

I understand that the BBC is to reshow the Horizon program “Atlantis Reborn” after an appeal for unfair treatment by Graham Hancock & Robert Bauval was upheld by the broadcasting standards commission.

Whilst i applaud the BBC for showing a revised edition of the show, it would appear that this once great (and i emphasise the ONCE GREAT) organisation appears to be doing the absolute minimum to repair the damage they caused or attempted to cause to these two respected and admired men.

Reinstating rebuttals from these gentlemen will not repair the damage to their theories caused by the original broadcast, especially if people who saw the first showing do not see the updated broadcast, and as the BBC is famous for showing repeats I’m sure that most people will not even be aware that the broadcast is updated.

Why cant the shows producers see that what they have done ,and appear to be attempting to do again, is nothing less than a totally biased witch hunt. An attempt to tarnish the facts that are supported by data ,but apparently not good enough data for producers whom i am sure do not even understand the basics of what they are relating to the public.

Maybe the show is being used as a personal attack on these men.

Why cant an open debate be broadcast along with the show, i know it goes against the grain for the modern BBC to broadcast something they can not manipulate to suit their own ends, but a debate would surely help people to understand what the relevant specialists believe to be true and what they believe to be fantasy. I am not biased, if you can broadcast a debate where someone can rebut or disprove the theories of Bauval & Hancock i will listen too and evaluate what they say for myself, what i dislike is the fact that someone i do not know has decided what information i can and cannot see, in other words they have tried to influence my understanding of the facts.

I personally am very aware of the disgusting way the corporation has treated this subject, and would like to see the producers brought to heal in a court of law, if you are not going to give all the facts in a broadcast then why bother at all. Thanks to the wonders of the internet there are a great many people in Britain (and around the world) that are very much aware of your attempts to pass off a biased production as well researched and fairly edited.

I watch very little of the BBC these days as its standards are so low it is embarrassing to have it as a national institution. Hopefully someone there will try and restore the integrity it was once famed for, otherwise you could all be out of jobs. The public pay your wages, if the decline continues maybe the government will admit defeat and break the corporation up, i certainly wont shed a tear if it does happen. In my humble opinion its full of people who are more interested in themselves than they are producing quality, fair broadcasts.

I would welcome a reply from you, at least i am willing to hear both sides of an argument.

Even if you are not willing to broadcast them.

Martin Day

From: john paul []
Sent: 11 November 2000 15:46

Hello i love watching horizon because it does great science programmes and informs the public on issues.

I watched Horizon’s Atlantis Reborn i was shocked and upset in the way this programme was made,as long as i’ve watched horizon it has never behaved like this before…

TimeWatch did a very similar programme a few years ago giving both sides of the argument which is the way to tackle a controversial topic like Atlantis and others,but the way Horizon handled it was just did not give both of the argument this is just one of many issues that has been highlighted about Atlantis Reborn.

Watching Atlantis reborn everyone you interviewed just kept on attacking him(Mr Hancock)”and others of course”all the way with no rest bite now as a viewer this doesn’t seem fair at all..,it doesn’t matter which side of the fence you sit on when dealing with a topic like this,it’s always best to have a for and against it makes for a healthier debate.

You can not tell the public who’s wright and who’s wrong without real facts and Horizon “in this case” had no facts,you have to back up a claim with evidence you can look really silly when people start questioning you…so to me it makes a whole lot of sense to redo this programme with Mr Hancock’s full interview and others so that the public can make up there own minds it’s only fair.

Mistakes have been made that’s why the programme has to be redone and it now seems that Mr hancock is having to show the interview without Horzion being involved this to me is crazy it will only look bad for BBC/Horizon so lets hope by 14th December common sense has prevailed and the paying public get to see and hear a fair argument.

Yours Sincerely

Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at
Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at

From: Emma []
Sent: 11 November 2000 15:28
To: Graham 1
Cc: Graham 3; Graham 2
Subject: Lost Faith

Dear Sirs,

Thank you for supplying the icing on the cake. I can no longer trust any of the BBC documentary programs, as I always wonder if I am seeing the whole truth, or just the ‘bits you mish mash together’.

Since watching the Atlantis Reborn documentary I have been very disappointed in your style of broadcasting, but a little faith remained when I heard the Broadcasting Standards Commission ruled in Mr Hancock and Mr Buvals favour. But alas once again you’ve let me down.

What distant cloud are you guys living in? If actually had a choice whether I paid you to entertain me or not, I certainly wouldn’t!

Thanks for filling the country’s minds with complete trash, then perhaps you want a community of people living in cloud cuckoo land, so you feel more at home. But hey – you still rake in the cash don’t you – so what do you care.

Emma Holmwood
(from Planet Earth – maybe you should visit sometime).

(ex BBC fan)

From: Caroline Needham []
Sent: 11 November 2000 13:26
Subject: Horizon Transcripts

Dear Mr Lynch,

I would like to express to you my support of Graham Hancock in his request to publish (in the forth coming re-release of ‘Fingerprints of the Gods’) the full transcripts from the Horizon programs, ‘Atlantis Uncovered’ and ‘Atlantis Reborn’. as it is supposedly BBC policy to be answerable to the licence paying public then surely the release in to the public domain of these transcripts is only right. Furthermore, in this way, you will be ensuring that the full story is told in as fair a way a possible for all concerned. I hope you will reconsider you decision regarding this matter.

Yours Sincerely,

Caroline Needham.

Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free address at
or your free address at

Sent: 11 November 2000 12:58
Subject: Of square pegs and round holes…..

Dear John,

Your conduct is truly unacceptable in today’s day and age, where day by day more people are getting accustomed to having open access to information, and learning how to sift and choose what is of relevance to them.

Keep in mind that today’s actions, unlike the past, are recorded and documented electronically, and BBC’s history, as a high profile media institution, will be accessed by countless individuals via the internet and other means, and each and every action made by you today will be comparable instantaneously with whatever the then present day position.

This story between you and Graham is a sad case of manipulation, and if not, why not wipe the slate by a direct confrontation?

In the future, a web search on John Lynch, or Graham Hancock will remind today’s toddlers of the pitiful media control of today, where facts are edited and twisted to fit a square peg in a round hole.


___________________________________________________________________ Join the Space Program: Get FREE E-mail at

From: Thomas Lawson [] Sent: 11 November 2000 05:16 To: Cc:;

Mr. Lynch:

As a scholar and lover of intellectual honesty, may I ask that the BBC consider allowing a televised interview between Mrs Buval and Hancock and his accusers: Colin Renfrew, Ken Feder, Ed Krupp and Kate Spence.

To allow editorial license of only one viewpoint of anything without any opportunity to respond, as Mr. Hancock alleges, borders on intellectual and scientific dishonesty.

Not only would the repartee make for an intersting show, such a meeting might illuminate dark places.

Thomas F. Lawson, Ph.D.

Sent: 11 November 2000 02:12
Subject: About the Hancock Cencorship Issue…

Dear Dr. Lynch,

I was saddened to hear that the BBC has not allowed basic freedom of expression to Graham Hancock in his pursuit of the scientific exploration of the mysteries of ancient Egypt.

Graham, whose work is very much admired and respected by many of us in the various fields of science here in the United States, is well known to be a man of integrity and honor, which is more than I can say about the handful of information “guardians” such as yourselves.

How shameful it must be to bear the consequences of casting darkness over such apparent scientific and archaeological breakthroughs such as these. This knowledge belongs to the people of all countries, races and creeds.

How awful it will ultimately be for you and your gang to be forever recorded as being on the wrong side of the truth when our history books are eventually corrected. I don’t envy you at all.

Thomas Calhoun

From: Loor Publications []
Sent: 10 November 2000 20:48
Subject: Copy of letter sent to John Lynch, Creative Director of Science at the BBC

Mr. Hancock and Mr. Bauval:

Below is a copy of the letter I sent to John Lynch, Creative Director of Science at the BBC. I also sent a copy to Mark Thompson, Director of TV at the BBC. I hope it helps.

I am using the email as recommended by someone else on the message board because when I first sent it to, it bounced, the reason given – “User Unknown.”

All my best wishes,



Mr. Lynch:

I would like to know why you are refusing to make right all the damage you have done to Graham Hancock’s and Robert Bauval’s reputations. Because you were so “eager” to air the words of others who attacked Hancock and Bauval, but steadfastly deny Hancock and Bauval their chance to defend themselves, I can only conclude that you are purpously trying to ruin their reputations. I would like to know why? I would also like to see you make right the wrong you have done. The very least you could do is let Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval publish the full transcript of their interviews. The public has the right to know the truth.


Cindy S Boesing