<HTML>The science editor at the Daily Telegraph is really Roger Highfield. Roger Hargreaves is of course the author of the Mr Men books - which I can thoroughly recommend. Some of you may note the striking similarity between the Mr Men books and the science page in the DT. LOL.
To refresh your minds Robert Bauval exchanged a few emails with Roger Highfield in relation to Prof. Archie Roy last year.
<a href=""></a>
<a href="[
www.grahamhancock.com] the GHMB</a>
Author: Robert G. Bauval (---.proxy.aol.com)
Date: 14-Dec-00 16:54
Dear All,
I thought some of you may be interested in a little ongoing battle-of-words I have with the science editor of the Daily Telegraph, one Roger Highfield. Roger had covered the Kate Spence story on the 16 November, after which he received from me a letter of complaint. On the 7th December Roger contacted Graham and I regarding a story he wanted to do about the BBC Horizon Atlantis Reborn programme. He interviewed me over the phone and we exchanged a few e-mails. I specifically informed him that three senior British astronomers, Dr. Archie Roy, Dr. Percy Seymour and Dr. Mary Bruck had dismissed Ed Krupp's 'upside down' arguments as invalid and unwarranted, and e-mailed him their written rebuttals. Roger, however, ignored them in his article. He also ignored me, and omitted mentioning my name in the article. What followed is, I think, quite amusing, and does much to highlight the kind of problem Graham Hancock and I are facing.
I've omitted Roger's own e-mail to me as I do not have his permission to use them. But mine to him are sufficient to get the gist of this bizarre exchange.
Robert G. Bauval
The echange progresses from the 12 December to the 14 December...
Subj: From Robert G. Bauval
Date: 12/12/00
To:
roger_highfield@hotmail.com
To: Roger Highfield
Science Editor
Daily Telegraph
cc. Dr. Percy Seymour, University of Plymouth
Dr. A. Roy, University of Glasgow
Dr. M. Bruck, University of Edinburgh
Dear Roger Highfield,
I quote here below your very mindless and rather demeaning personal comments regarding the highly respected British astronomers that I have mentioned to you and who gave written rebuttals to Ed Krupp's accusations (on the BBC Horizon), namely Dr. Mary Bruck, Dr. Archibald Roy and Dr. Percy Seymour. You wrote:
"I would not really call the three astronomers you refer to senior, unless
you mean in terms of advanced age. I have only heard of one of them in my
14 years of reporting on astronomy (and when it comes to that particular
person, I seem to remember he believes in astrology!)."
I am outraged by this derogatory and pompous statement about academics I highly respect. It is most unprofessional to write this kind of nonsense, especially by someone who is science editor to the Daily Telegraph. I presume you are referring to Dr. Archibald Roy as 'that particular person'.
May I remind you that Dr. Roy is presently Professor Emeritus at the University of Glasgow. He is an Honorary Senior Researcher Fellow at the Physics and Astronomy Department, and was head of the Department for 6 years, and was senior lecturer from 1968 onwards. He is a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and served as chairman for the Education Committee.
Dr. Percy Seymour is Principal Lecturer in astronomy at Plymouth University, and Dr. Mary Bruck was Senior Lecturer in astronomy at Edinburgh University and has co-authored works with her (late) husband, the eminent Professor Herman Bruck, an Astronomer Royal of Scotland.
I am forwarding this to all parties concerned as well as to the chief editor of your newspaper.
Robert G. Bauval
Subj: Re: From Robert G. Bauval
Date: 13/12/00
To:
Roger_Highfield@hotmail.com
Dear Roger,
Regarding articles and publications by the astronomers in question, especially Dr. Roy, you really must be either joking or you are very naive. Dr. Roy has published hundreds of peer reviewed papers and is the author of several astronomical and astrophysics textbooks. And more relevant to the matter under consideration, Dr. Bruck has published very recently an article in the Journal of the Astronomical Association specifically on the question of the astronomy of the Great Pyramid. To my knowledge none are supporters of 'astrology'. Dr. Roy has an interest in parapsychology and the paranormal, but purely from a scientific viewpoint. For that matter, so do I.
Cheers,
Robert G. Bauval
Subj: Re: From Robert G. Bauval
Date: 13/12/00
To:
Roger_Highfield@hotmail.com
Dear Roger,
I spoke to one of the astronomers last night who remarked, quite rightly, that this issue is getting absurd. You don't have to be a peered-reviewed senior astronomer or astrophysicist etc. etc. to know whether Ed Krupp was justified or not in his accusations. All you have to do is have a good eyesight, be willing to step out at night and watch Orion at culmination, and then decide if the correlation I propose works or not. Any child can do that. It works for millions of people who have read my books or seen my presentations on TV and in conferences. I works even for three senior astronomers and several astrophysicist I know. It works because it makes sense and fits the context and there are ancient near-contemporary texts that support the hypothesis. It works because there are previous studies that link Orion and Orion's belt with the pyramids.
But if it doesn't work for you because I am not published in Nature or Science, that's too bad. As for Kate Spence's 'theory' and 'dating', no sanction or peer-review from Nature or Science will change the fact that she has heavily borrowed from others, to sat the very least.
Cheers again.
Robert G. Bauval
Subj: Re: From Robert G. Bauval
Date: 14/12/00
To:
Roger_Highfield@hotmail.com
Dear Roger,
It is not I who is getting side-tracked but you. You've completely lost track of what the real issue is and why you contacted me in the first place i.e. the formal complaint Hancock and I made to the BSC regarding the BBC Horizon programme Atlantis Reborn, and their subsequent adjudication of unfairness on only one point, namely the treatment of my Giza-Orion theory by Ed Krupp. This adjudication and the controversy it has drawn is fully centred on this one single point only as your own article on Monday clearly showed but amazingly omitted to attribute to me either the theory or the unfairness apparently for 'simplification' reasons given by you sub-editor. If you had seen the Horizon documentary you would have known that the unfairness was primarily directed to my person and my theory. However, as I recall, I did make this clear when you interviewed me on the 7 December. So much for proper reporting.
At any rate, with special reference to you comments about Dr. Archie Roy (BTW why don't you name him and the other astronomers, instead of beating around the bush): If you do not think that holding the title of Professor Emeritus of Astronomy, as well as Honorary Senior Research Fellow of Astronomy, plus several years as Head of Department of Astronomy and Senior Lectureship in Astronomy is NOT to be considered as 'senior' in the field of astronomy, then you are really wasting my time and also yours. Same goes for Dr. Percy Seymour who is a Principal Lecturer in Astronomy at a British University and of whom I have a great deal of respect.
However, if you really care about the real issue and want to cover an important scientific debate, then I'll be more than glad to collaborate. But somehow I doubt you do. So move on to your next 'story' and please stop wasting my time.
Yours,
Robert
To be continued... perhaps.</HTML>
