<HTML>Mark Grant wrote:
>
> As for your remark on Graham's work: 'has anyone considered
> GH books as just that... an "amateur" (in the sense of versus
> a professional archaeologist/historian) who put together as
> much information as he could come up with and feel that he
> had adequately verified at the time?'
>
> This cuts to the heart of one of the major problems I see at
> work here. Let me start off by saying that I do think GH is
> an excellent story teller and somebody who has obviously put
> a lot of work into his research.
He has checked little, if any, of it. Just look at how he "justifies" using Posnansky. He considers it sufficient to "acknowledge" the orthodox position and then "explore" an alternative chronology. I'm sorry but that is downright deceitful - read Garrett's articles on this site. The orthodox chronology for Tiwanaku built up over the last 50 years or so is as near as can be to <i>proven</i> - it's not just from Tiwanaku itself but cross-referenced to other related sites. But Hancock ignores it ! Why ? Because he's <i>desperate</i> for anything to support his LC.
> What's not so good, and I'm
> beginning to think of questionable ethical concern, is how he
> presents the information to the trusting public.
He deliberately misleads them - what he writes on his site <i>proves</i> that imho.
> I'll have more to say on this later, but in general my take
> on your position as described above is that the onus should
> be placed upon the reader to know or assume that GH is an
> amateur. I disagree. I would have absolutely no problem with
> this aspect of his work if he were to state clearly and
> prominently and where really appropriate, what his position,
> style of argumentation and the like are with respect to any
> given issue.
He'd never admit that, for example, Posnansky has been totally and utterly disproved - as has Hapgood.
> In short, I don't think he's doing this much if at all.
He's not. Period.
> Where I see him doing it, I think he's doing it in an
> overly disguised manner which *may* be intended to create a
> sufficient consumer response while adding a token kind of accountability.
He "acknowledges" the orthodox position and then puts a "spin" on the superseded information he wants to use; Posnansky spent almost 50 years at Tiwanaku, his work is "massive", etc, etc.
> Maybe Graham actually thinks his packaging of things is truly
> okay, but I have serious doubts about this.
Good.
> Were he not such
> an excellent story-teller [ie, packager of information] and
> one so experienced in media [more packaging], I might find
> this to be less of a concern (as this could be explained
> away, at least a time or two, as a 'rookie' kind of mistake).
Imho alternative history is based, at best, on ignorance, at worst, in deceit. Any alternative author who's been in the business long enough to write more than a couple of books and continues to churn out the same stuff, based on the same non-existent data is, by default, in the latter category.
> However, in Graham's case we have a man who's been working in
> the media for decades, and that gives him ample experience
> when it comes to the art of making an impression, be it via
> calling one's attention to some issues, away from others, or
> the construction-deconstruction of materials on the 'Arts of
> the Cutting Room Floor'. To do this while attacking the
> academic establishment in general makes matters even more
> problematic to me.
He's a journalist.
> I do think GH should make direct comment on these kinds of
> issues, not from the standpoint of a mere amateur, but as a
> very learned amateur with a high level of understanding of
> academic standards and expertise in the realm of
> media-presentation methods. If he can [or has] provide what I
> think is a sufficient explanation that takes all of these
> issues into account, I'll be the first person to publickly
> acknowledge that.
Oh look, there's a flying pig ! Read what he writes on his site, it's all special pleading - I'm not a historian, I'm just an author, a "synthesiser".
Why not ask him to publicly withdraw all parts of his books that are based on sources of data - Hapgood, Posnansky, etc, etc - that have been superseded ? Either that or ask him to provide refutations of the refutations ?
He'd never do it - FOG would be reduced to a title page and HM to just the pictures; which are the best part !
John</HTML>
