Hi again Phil,

> I don't thnk this is a bad thing.  I haven't subscribed to britarch, and
> I've heard nothing on how it's going.  I must admit I'm a little curious,
> but not enough to take on more incoming mail.

No idea. I'm on so many lists that my Britarch subscription
has had to go. Anybody on both lists that cares to fill us
in with the pertinent points?

> Again, thanks...  I'll try to be less inflamatory in future, although again,
> maybe it's not a bad thing...

Maybe it is possible to stimulate debate without
inflamatory statements. But this is the problem with
emails, the tone is far more dependent on the way it is
read than the way it is delivered.

> Science has long had a tradition of heated
> debates.  It thrives on them...

Agreed, i have trained in the sciences and i've had one or
two heated debates myself (but usually they are not about
science and occur in the pub %-)

> My statement IS FOUNDED, -in intuition as stated (ie "strong sense").

Okay, i agree with your comment, my fault for constructing
an ambiguous sentence. I meant founded in fact. But i still
don't think that you could possibly have enough experience
of TT to make such judgements whether based on fact or
intuition.

> >i accuse you, sir, of being closed minded on this matter. How can you
> criticise others for being brainwashed by TT
>
> I don't think that I did.   It was my intent to WARN against this happening
> and that there MAY be some truth to the allegations...

Well, i certainly felt that your original post was very
accusative, and very damning of the programme and anybody
involved. Your intent certainly appeared to be to put people
off of watching it. I didn't sense any doubt or grey areas
in your original post.

> I accuse you, sir, of being closed minded in thinking, like my advisors,
> that there is no place for intuition in science.

That is not true, i certainly recognise the place for
intuition in science. Some great breakthroughs have been
made on the basis of a hunch. I would even go as far to say
that there is room for some subjectivity. There is
certainly a lot of it in archaeology (e.g. with
reconstructions). But it must be recognised as such. And
any intuitive or subjective thoughts/statememnts/etc must
be backed up with some facts in order to be taken
seriously. Theories don't stand the test of time unless
they can be substantiated. Otherwise what can we believe?
But certainly a good theory should be able to adapt to new
evidence if and when it arises. Note that the key word in
that last sentence is EVIDENCE.

The theories of Von Daniken, for instance, can appear to be
very persuasive, but lack sufficient factual backing either
way. Consequently they sell a lot of books, and stimulate
much debate, and are not accepted by many people as the
truth. Personally, i don't see how we can say that the
pyramids weren't built using alien technology, and accept
that it is my social conditioning that makes me think that
he is wrong. What i want is solid eveidence. But this could
easily drift into a debate on the existence of a deity, so
i'll shut up (on list at least).

> >Hence, it is equally likely that the landowner did it, or me for that
> matter!
>
> What would be the motive?  Did TT try to find out who did it?  If yes, with
> what result?  If no, Why not?

They asked the landowners' son-in-law if he was aware who
did it. He denied any knowledge. The landowner himself
declined to be filmed even though he had originally agreed
to. One motive would be for the perverse satisfaction of
hoodwinking the archaeological establishment. The American
surveyors of the site were certainly fooled.

> >> Agreed: the site was a hoax.  Who would have what motive to go to such
> lengths?
> >Again, no evidence = unfounded accusations.
>
> Again, -a question, not an accusation.   Whoever you think I'm accusing is
> apparantly who YOU think has the motive...

Interesting rhetoric, nice one! Firstly, i refer to above
where i state that i felt your original post was very
accusative. Hence, by association, i am likely to read an
accusation levelled at TT into your later "question". It is
a question loaded with accusation. And secondly, i don't
think TT had the motive, why bother faking a site and then
debunking it when there is so much to lose if they were
found out?

> I would think that the land owner has more motive, and is therefore more
> suspect (alone or in conspiracy), than you.  Those who are angry with me, I
> suspect, also have something to gain from the deception (proportional to the
> degree
> of anger...)

:-) You have a very interesting style of debate, and for
that i applaud you. You are very adept at both stimulating
thought and being mildly offensive at times :-). But i
disagree with you.

Enough on this matter said i think. I see where you are
coming from and agree with your motives, but disagree with
you in the detail.

> In the interests of a holistic science and the discovery of truth....

I raise my glass to that.

Slante,

Rich

----------------------
Rich Pederick
[log in to unmask]
----------------------
Living Spring Journal - THE International Electronic
Forum for Research into Holy Wells & Waterlore
http://www.bath.ac.uk/lispring/journal/front.htm