<HTML>Chris
I think you are oversimplifying.
My point was more personal. Horizon is the 'flagship' science programme for a publicly funded BBC. I expect individuals of high calibre to be recruited so that best judgement is exercised. Clearly on the show 'Atlantis Uncovered' the BSC upheld the complaint of unfairness and as I understand it the show was edited and rebroadcast. So have we recruited fair minded clear thinking individuals for that programme?
I think with all due respect you have changed the point you were making from your original post.
I will reproduce your original post in full here for your convenience
*********************************************************
From Donnelly to Hancock, diffusionist writers - for want of a better word - have drawn on genuine science - again for want of a better word - to persuade their readers that there really is hard evidence for the idea they are proposing - ie the lost civilisation in one form or another.
I would argue that this is an illusionist trick - but often very effective, and dangerous. The fact that anyone is still discussing the West/Schoch Sphinx material shows that a dollop of 'science' can go a long way.
Hancock has always done this - for example, misquoting Professor Joseph Kirschvink in Heaven's Mirror.
From the clues offered by his site, Underworld will continue this strategy: see the recent post on the Jomon culture from his researcher. Here we have talk of oceanic 'pulses', the Sunda Shelf and so on: all very 'scientific'.
But SO WHAT?
The irony is that the Hancockists exploit any shift in what they call 'orthodox theory' - conveniently ignoring the way real science continuously tests ideas in the furnace of new data.
The key is that in no way does the material on Jomon culture in the Americas support Hancock's basic proposal about a LOST civilisation. Although by not stating very clearly WHAT he proposes he can get away with almost anything.
I suspect he will pull some sophisticated new science into Underworld - and many will fall for it...
Don't let them get ahead of the game!
***********************************************************
This is unclear. First, what is your complaint? That 'diffusionist' writers (and I don't accept the label) should seek empirical evidence? You think that they should seek scientific evidence Chris or do you think that they should not? Strange. Your criticism reads that it is an trait of (shall I assume that your refer to GH & RB?) to draw on genuine science......do you think it would be more appropriate from them to avoid it?
Next you 'agree that Schoch's proposal about the Sphinx is a real hypothesis" and that 'He hasn't been proved wrong:' yet previously as you will note, you seem to express surprise that 'anyone is still discussing the West/Schoch Sphinx material', (I seem to recall Schoch's proposal for the Age of the Sphinx was absent from the Horizon show - at least Schoch's part in it as the proposer)
You go on 'Underworld will continue this strategy' What strategy? Using empirical evidence? Calling upon science? It wasn't clear from your first post. Now I assume that you are arguing that Schoch is being exploited by GH & RB. Your claim is that because he prosposes a more recent date for the carving of the Sphinx then he is being in some way misrepresented by GH & RB. Well I would add to your point that Schoch proposes a minimun carving date for the Sphinx. However I agree that he doesn't subscribe to a 10500BC date. This is a long way from exploitation though Chris - GH & RB make it clear what date Schoch proposes in their works. If this was the only criticism you have, then I think it is a lame one.
Do you think that geology is 'real science'? Are you making a judgement as to which proposal best fits the facts? Are you able to exclude the geological evidence that Dr Schoch has presented? Can GH & RB make a judgement as to which proposal best fits the facts? Are they able to exclude the geological evidence that Dr Schoch has presented? You are making little of Dr Schochs evidence for precipitation based weathering, they are making little of the seismic data. But you are both applying the same criteria, making a judgement as to which proposal best fits the facts.
You may disagree with the proposals of GH & RB, but you are misrepresenting them in your original post - and I stand by my view that your original post is incoherent.
Claire</HTML>
