<HTML>Anthony wrote:
>This is unfortunate. I'm sure Robert had a
>better response than the one they CHOSE to
>put in the final version.
Have you seen the outtakes? If not, how do
you know? The examples that you gave are
the typical inconsistancies that occur in any
edited show. Shows have to be edited because
there simply not time to show anything. You are
concocting imaginary conspiracies out of nothing.
Obviously, in your opinion, if Robert does not
do as well as expected, it can never be Robert's
fault but rather it must be the result of
some conspiracy between the producers
and the BBC to make him look bad.
It seems like so much of alternative arcaheology
is based on the presumption that conventional
scientists are malicious, evil people out to
get them at all costs. Also, there is the
assumption that if the data does not exist
to support their pet ideas, it is because
evil, almost "Satanic," conventional scientists
out there have suppressed the evidence and
that the lack of evdience for their ideas is
proof of this conspiracy.
...text deleted...
>You can do these little tricks with video,
>and make someobody look REAL stupid REAL easily.
The hypocracy of the true believers never ceases
to amaze me. Anthony complains about conventional
scientists indulging in character assasination, yet
when his pet theories are critizied, he asassinates
the character of the producers by calling them
outright lairs and cheats and falsely accusing
them of manipulating the footage shown.
The premise of followers of alternative
archaeology seems to be if one of their
archaeologistsa says something stupid or
looks stupid on a documentray, it is never
because the person did something stupid but
beacuse the video manipulated to make it look
like he did. If an alternative archaeologist fails
to make a convincing argument, it is not
because he actually failed to do so but
because his arguments were edited on the
documentray to make them unconvincing.
Given the degree that these accussations are made,
it not surprising that there exists animosity towards
alternative arcaheologists. If you repeatedly make
false accusations that honest people, i.e. the
producers BBC and conventional scientists that
appeared on the show, are liars, cheats, and
frauds, then alternative archaeologists should
expect to be disrespected and not taken seriously
by these people.
Just a Few Thoughts
Keith</HTML>