<HTML>Not on GH's theories, but just on the show - this is my view - for what it's worth (not much :-))
I think that (a) is a no brainer.
I would take issue with the BSC on points:
(d) the programme had implied that he had formulated the theory that the Great Sphinx was significantly older than was generally accepted;
<b>The BSC found:</b>
On the age of the Great Sphinx, the Commission does not consider that the programme claimed or implied that Mr Hancock was the originator of the theory, based on calculations of rate of erosion, that the Sphinx is much older than most experts suppose.
<b>The Horizon show said:</b>
The Sphinx was carved out of the limestones of the Giza plateau. Mainstream archaeologists think it was built 4,500 years ago but Hancock believes it is 12,000 years old. Some of his evidence is again astronomical. The constellation Leo rose above the horizon directly east of the Sphinx in 10,500BC, but there is no evidence that this constellation was recognised by the Ancient Egyptians, but Hancock also claims there is geological evidence. Egypt has had a dry climate since the time the pyramids were built, but the Sphinx and its surrounding enclosure are deeply eroded. It has been argued by Hancock and others that the erosion was caused by heavy rainfall and that this means the Sphinx must have been carved many thousands of years earlier than we thought, when the climate was wetter
(f) the programme had wrongly stated that he had originated the theory that Atlantis was Antarctica
<b>The BSC found:</b>
The Commission does not consider that the programme claimed or implied that Mr Hancock had originated the theory that Atlantis had become Antarctica as a result of displacement of the earth's crust. It reported fairly that he had used the theory to support his own contentions, but had included his comment that he "didn't need" Antarctica to make his theory convincing
<b>The Horizon show said:</b>
But there is one other way Hancock could change our view of the past and that is to find the home of the lost civilisation. It would be the find of the century, the real Atlantis. Hancock has made an astonishing suggestion about where it could be: Antarctica. In his best-selling book Fingerprints Of The Gods Hancock claims Antarctica was once in a warmer region and home to the lost civilisation. He suggests that a massive shift in the earth's crust, 12000 years ago displaced Antarctica to the South Pole where it became ice-bound.
Who sits on these things anyway? Scientists or lay people?
Claire</HTML>
