Mysteries :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Garrett, neither you, nor I have the time to get into a live debate on this site and if we do we'll both end up jobless because we won't have time to do anything else! Remember our experience of this during December and January when we exchanged more than 70 pages of private emails debating the various failings that you believe you have identified in my person and arguments? For goodness sake, we were even blazing away at each other on Christmas Eve.

Actually I have to confess you have a fine mind and you really put me to the test on a number of points. And while I quite understand your position about not wanting me to release our entire off-the-record debate on this site, as I have proposed to you, I think its a pity that we can't put it into the public domain. You're the Assistant Professor of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies and History at Penn State University and yours is one of the strongest and most persuasive voices in defence of orthodoxy that I have ever heard. I am a reasonably well-known author of alternative history and can get quite strong myself sometimes. I stand by everything I said. I'm sure you stand by everything you said, so why don't we just let the public have a look at our debate so that they can make up their own minds on the many issues we discussed at such length.

Still, as you pointed out, its your right to keep it private and I respect you too much to put the stuff out there without your agreement. Besides, as you pointed out, we have the big debate coming up next September at Penn State with an alternative history panel (myself, Robert Bauval, John West, Robert Schoch) pitted against your orthodox history panel -- which will include yourself and the Griffiths Observatory archaeo-astronomer Ed Krupp.

This being said, I have to take issue with you on a few of your points.

(1) You state for example of Tiahuanaco that "the very earliest human habitation is 1800 BC: that is the 'occupation horizon' as determined by mass sampling all over the site. Yet the fact is (at any rate I have it on the record as a fact on camera and on audio-tape from Oswaldo Rivera himself, the former Director of Bolivian Archaeology and one of the world's acknowledged experts on Tiahuanaco) that LESS THAN TWO PER CENT OF THE ENTIRE SITE HAS BEEN EXCAVATED. I don't think its safe to make such sweeping knee-jerk assumptions about Tiahuanaco's past as you and your colleagues do on the basis of a two per cent sample of the site. As a matter of fact I said all this on-camera to the BBC Horizon team, as you can verify for yourself by looking at the transcript excerpts on this site's "Horizon Scandal" page (under the heading "Arts of the Cutting Room"). The trouble is Horizon didn't feel my argument in this regard was worth reporting so they cut it out of the programme. Do you think that was FAIR by the way???

(2) You talk about carbon-dating of organic material in the Great Pyramid but neglect to mention that neither the original study done in the 80's or the more recent work at the end of the 90's have produced a date for the Great Pyramid that accords with orthodox chronology. The gap is not great, but it is big enough to raise a question-mark over the orthodox notion that the Pyramid was built as the tomb of one specific Pharaoh, namely Khufu. And interestingly, the 1980's study by Mark Lehner which made the Pyramid as much as 1,300 years older (and nowhere less 300 years older) than the time of Khufu has almost never been spoken about in orthodox publications on the Pyramid. It reminds me of a remark made by Profesor Joe Brew, Director of the Peabody Museum at Harvard: “If a C14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in the footnote. And if it is completely ‘out of date’, we just drop it.”

Surprisingly honest, eh?

(3) In your blanket dismissal of a lost civilistion you say nothing about the possibility of ruins underwater. If archaeological coverage of land-based sites is scanty, believe me it is a million times more scanty for possible underwater sites (remember, the oceans cover seven-tenths of the earth's surface). I'm a scuba diver and I've spent the last four years exploring anomalous underwater structures all around the world.

I think you guys are missing something -- mainly because your mindset about the past is so rigid that you just don't see the point of looking.

Friendly regards, Graham

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Rubbish 246 Mark Fagan 06-Nov-00 17:03
RE: Rubbish 192 Atlantida 06-Nov-00 19:16
RE: Rubbish 158 Geoff Stocks 06-Nov-00 22:54
RE: Rubbish 230 Derek Lynas 07-Nov-00 07:22
RE: Rubbish 188 Mark Fagan 07-Nov-00 10:17
RE: Rubbish 150 Derek Lynas 07-Nov-00 11:17
RE: Rubbish 176 Mark Fagan 07-Nov-00 12:00
RE: Rubbish 181 Derek Lynas 07-Nov-00 13:07
RE: Rubbish 201 Geoff Stocks 07-Nov-00 20:55
RE: Rubbish 183 Ruud 07-Nov-00 23:03
RE: Rubbish 207 Bryan 07-Nov-00 11:27
RE: Rubbish 183 Garrett Fagan 07-Nov-00 22:38
RE: Rubbish 145 Geoff Stocks 07-Nov-00 23:12
RE: Rubbish 183 Garrett Fagan 08-Nov-00 17:18
RE: Rubbish 212 laura 08-Nov-00 17:49
RE: Rubbish 186 laura 08-Nov-00 17:51
RE: Rubbish 177 Geoff Stocks 09-Nov-00 03:56
RE: Rubbish 175 Garrett Fagan 09-Nov-00 17:11
RE: Rubbish 333 Graham Hancock 09-Nov-00 19:21
RE: Rubbish 147 laura 09-Nov-00 21:41
RE: Rubbish 181 Mark 10-Nov-00 11:33
RE: Rubbish 326 Graham Hancock 10-Nov-00 12:15
RE: Rubbish 191 Mark 10-Nov-00 14:47
RE: Rubbish 168 Ruud 10-Nov-00 15:07
RE: Rubbish 207 laura 10-Nov-00 15:21
RE: Rubbish 187 Mark 10-Nov-00 15:39
RE: Rubbish 240 Ruud 10-Nov-00 20:26
RE: Rubbish 178 Mark 13-Nov-00 09:38
RE: Rubbish 178 Sharif 10-Nov-00 15:21
RE: Rubbish 191 Mark 10-Nov-00 16:28
RE: Rubbish 172 Ruud 10-Nov-00 20:37
RE: Rubbish 352 Graham Hancock 10-Nov-00 15:40
RE: Rubbish 202 Garrett Fagan 10-Nov-00 17:20
RE: Rubbish 199 Bob 10-Nov-00 17:55
RE: Rubbish( Here's a new one sonny) 177 Michael 10-Nov-00 16:58
RE: Rubbish( Here's a new one sonny) 140 Mark 10-Nov-00 17:31
RE: Rubbish( Here's a new one sonny) 183 laura 10-Nov-00 19:06
RE: Rubbish( Here's a new one sonny) 182 Michael 13-Nov-00 14:42
RE: Rubbish( Here's a new one sonny) 166 Michael 13-Nov-00 14:37
RE: Rubbish 160 Geoff Stocks 11-Nov-00 02:10
RE: Rubbish( Here's a new one sonny) 181 Halbared 16-Nov-00 02:05
RE: Rubbish 172 Geoff Stocks 11-Nov-00 02:39
RE: Rubbish 164 BRAD ISHERWOOD 08-Nov-00 09:13
RE: Rubbish 172 Ruud 08-Nov-00 09:38
RE: Rubbish 159 laura 08-Nov-00 13:02
RE: Rubbish 169 Mark 08-Nov-00 14:59
RE: Rubbish 180 Ruud 08-Nov-00 15:25
RE: Rubbish 198 laura 08-Nov-00 16:42
RE: Rubbish 167 Garrett Fagan 08-Nov-00 16:57
RE: Rubbish 151 laura 08-Nov-00 17:32
RE: Rubbish 261 Garrett Fagan 08-Nov-00 21:45
RE: Rubbish 216 laura 08-Nov-00 22:43
RE: Rubbish 214 Garrett Fagan 09-Nov-00 17:50
RE: Rubbish 175 Frank Leonard 10-Nov-00 16:10
RE: Rubbish 173 Ruud 09-Nov-00 18:09
RE: Rubbish 205 Ruud 10-Nov-00 21:19
Ruud's World 195 Garrett 11-Nov-00 14:34
RE: Ruud's World 204 Geoff Stocks 11-Nov-00 15:25
RE: Rubbish 160 jameske 11-Nov-00 17:06
RE: Rubbish 192 Ruud 08-Nov-00 16:08
RE: Rubbish 184 laura 08-Nov-00 16:50
RE: Rubbish 209 jameske 11-Nov-00 16:26
RE: Rubbish 160 Geoff Stocks 11-Nov-00 18:13
RE: Rubbish 155 Margaret 11-Nov-00 00:42
chitchat-testing 145 Geoff 01-Feb-01 00:18
RE: Rubbish 157 Ingemar Svensson 10-Nov-00 11:46
RE: Rubbish 180 Garrett Fagan 10-Nov-00 17:45
RE: Rubbish 180 BRAD ISHERWOOD 11-Nov-00 05:13
RE: Rubbish 175 Duncan 10-Nov-00 13:52


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.