<HTML>The big problem is that you've got a - nominally - 50 minute programme which actually has a running time of maybe 47 minutes. The reason for this length is so that when it is shown on cable/satellite, etc with adverts it fits into a 1 hour slot.
<just to clarify for those in the US, there are no adverts on the BBC>
Then you look at the "material" in something like FOG or HM and in order to try and get the "coverage"; Egypt, Americas, Cambodia, Yonaguni, Antarctica, etc, etc you can, at best, address each subject in what might be described as a "superficial" manner.
Additionally - and this is clear to virtually anyone who's looked beneath the surface of what GH, etc writes - it's at least 95%, or more probably, 99% <i>Brilliant Speculation</i>, relying on long superseded work, circular reasoning, selective use of the evidence (admitted on his website), etc, etc. Virtually any reasonably competent TV programme researcher with access to the internet or a half decent library could very easily find that out - and they'd hardly need any sort of archaeological or historical "qualifications".
To some extent GH was either stupid or arrogant to participate in the programme as, basically, his work doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny.
John</HTML>
