<HTML>I think I understand something here...
Graham basically got toasted. No question. The 10.5K BC LC theory got annihilated fairly, according to the BSC, and the BBC.
This, of course, doesn't sit well with him... I can certainly understand his feelings.
What I think they FAILED to account for was the OVERALL image created by the "little" ommissions of the producers. Each individual piece might not mean much, but together, all eight missing pieces can and do add up to a potentially "dirty pool" tactic, used to create a certain air of "fraud" around Hancock.
Now, some will make the claim that "if the shoe fits, wear it", regarding Graham and his theory. However, if the eight "little" ommissions DID NOT occur, then what would have been the overall image of Graham at that point?
Also, had they included their anticipated rebuttals, what would have been the rebuttals TO the rebuttals? And it goes on. I suppose the producers had to stop somewhere.
However, the ONE point the commision found in FAVOR of Hancock and Bauval really is NOTHING OF THE SORT...
it's in favor of BAUVAL, and Bauval alone. Bauval's ENTIRE correlation theory was depicted as "on trial"... not just the dating to 10.5K BCE. In this matter, I think it is fair that Robert be allowed to claim TOTAL VICTORY that his CORRELATION THEORY was not given fair treatment.
However, his correlation theory was NOT the subject of the program. His correlation theory, as it relates to Graham's Atlantean theories, was the topic.
Fine lines, to be assured. But I now understand how BOTH sides can claim near flawless victory.
Robert, congratulations on your point being upheld... it is your most significant point, to be sure.
Duncan/Mikey/etc... You're absolutely right about the nature of the upheld complaint being inconsequential to the LC hypothesis.
What do you know... the truth is, once again, in the middle.
Anthony</HTML>
