<HTML>In anticipation of the forthcoming Horizon broadcast on TLC (Oct. 2), and judging from the bruhaha generated by the show's UK airing, a few things need to be appreciated in advance.
(1) The programme aimed at covering Hancock's "kitchen-sink" speculating in a mere 50 minutes. Any reasonable person can see that it would impossible to cover in detail all the material Hancock brings to bear on his belief in a LC in 50 minutes. Some items, therefore, had to be omitted or glossed over. The time constraints also made it impossible to delve into every claim in complete detail, presenting claim and counterclaim, and giving air to every supporter and every opponent. So accusations that geologist A or astronomer B didn't get a chance to offer their support are pointless. As US viewers will see, much of the airtime is given to Hancock himself to explain his theory in detail, and his arguments are presented accurately, since they come mostly from Hancock's own mouth. IIRC, this presentation of Hancock's position occupies about 15-20 minutes of 50-minute programme. Overall, given the scope of Hancock's speculations, I think the programme does a remarkable job in covering so much of it in so short a time.
(2) It has been stated in certain quarters that the show was biased from the outset and driven by an agenda. The first claim is not true, the second is. Given "Horizon"'s status as a science programme, the agenda was to test scientifically the claims made for the "evidence" of an LC in the era 10,500 BC. I am informed that at the outset, the producers were told by their superiors that should the evidence bear this controversial "theory" out, that is what would be aired. There was no question of doing a hatchet job on the ideas for an LC from the show's conception and thus no inherent "bias" from the get-go. But, as has been demonstrated on this website and elsewhere, claims made for the LC "evidence" almost universally evaporate when subjected to testing and scrutiny. This is what the Horizon team discovered. So that is what they aired. Should they have done otherwise?
(3) Accusations of unfairness abounded in the wake of the show's airing in the UK. I have always found these accusations remarkable, given that I have seen literally dozens of hours of TV on TLC, Discovery, and the History Channel and on the main US networks which present the LC hypothesis with either minimal counter-input from professionals (typically, 3-5 minutes of a 50-minute airing) or none whatsoever. The last example of such a show aired only last week on the History Channel's "History's Mysteries" about Yonaguni. In this programme, a virtual hour-long plug for the LC/Atlantis proposition, not a single countervailing view was heard. "Academics" and "experts" in archaeology were derided as close-minded buffoons and their theories presented as narrow and limiting (sometimes even by the narrator), but none were actually invited to participate in the show. "Skepticism" (about Yonaguni only -- the Atlantis proposition was not at all questioned) was represented by John Anthony West and Robert Schoch! That's how biased it was. I have seen numerous programmes like this but have never heard the alternative Guardians of Fairness complain bitterly about how the other side was under-represented in these shows. It seems that if a programme endorses their ideas without presenting the other side, it's fine. If it takes a critical look at these same ideas, it is a hatchet job. Go figure.
(4) But the claim of unfairness about the Horizon show itself is unconvincing. In addition to the extended section presenting Hancock's ideas, he also gets ample opportunity to reply on camera to every criticism raised against his propositions in the Horizon programme. That he often can't do so except by resorting to special pleading or dismissive comments is a problem not with the programme but with his ideas. However, as is well known, certain parties took their complaints to the BSC. They made 10 specific complaints of unfairness (8 from Hancock and 2 from Bauval). Of these 10 complaints one of Hancock's and one of Bauval's were the same: that they had not been given opportunity to reply to criticisms of the Orion-Correlation Theory. There were therefore, in reality, 9 issues of complaint. Of these 9 issues, the BSC rejected 8. The one it upheld was the shared complaint about the Orion-Correlation Theory. The complaint, then, was 88.8% unsuccessful.
Note that the BSC (a) did NOT agree that the show was systematically unfair or biased, in fact its ruling expressly stated the opposite; (b) it did NOT endorse any of Hancock or Bauval's "theories" themselves, since it was no authority to do so; (c) it rejected all but one of the bases of complaint brought to it.
Despite these facts, the BSC ruling has been vaunted on Hancock's webpage as doing all three of the above. There can be no better example of what happens to clear and unambiguous evidence when processed by the "alternative" perspective.
In the wake of the BSC's decision, the BBC aired a re-edited version of the show (which I presume is what is going to air on Oct. 2 on TLC) in December 2000. It did so voluntarily, since the BSC has no powers to force a TV station to re-air any of its shows found to be partially faulty. That the BBC re-aired the programme at all is therefore a sign of how much confidence it has in it. Had the programme in fact been systematically unfair and biased, the BBC would have had no reason to open itself up to further complaints or worse from Bauval and Hancock by airing such a defective programme again. The re-airing was therefore not an admission of error but a vote of confidence.
Best,
Garrett</HTML>
