Chris

I read your report with great interest. Although various people we have consulted have expressed doubts about the methods you used to verify the spiral grooves on the core, and although Reid and Brownlee definitely intend to re-inspect it to check your claims, for the moment I see no problem with us continuing on the working assumption that the core does display spiral grooves. So now we come back to the critical issue of whether or not these could have been created as the drill bit was withdrawn, which would then tell us nothing about the rate of cut. Certainly in your book, and in all the correspondence we had before your site visit, you accepted this as a possibility (witness your quoting of Clive Treadwell etc). Clearly you are now suggesting, as a result of your new research, that grooves of up to .005" in depth could not be produced by this process because of insufficient lateral force. Reid and Brownlee certainly do not accept your arguments in this area, but they suggest, and I agree with them, that continuing to debate these issues on a theoretical level suffers from diminishing returns. They intend to continue their research by practical experimentation, and as always we can only await the results. However I think it behoves both yourself and them to investigate the work of Denys Stocks in this area.

In any case, I am still unclear about what conclusions your additional research allows you to draw. You have stated previously that the primary aspect which made you consider ultrasound was the fact that the quartz was cut deeper than the feldspar, but that you now accept Brownlee's suggestion that this may have been caused by ripping. I see nothing in your latest report that makes a definitive judgement on this issue. So, in your view, is the ultrasound solution now totally vindicated, and if so what is the definitive line of reasoning?

I have deliberately tried to respond to the "constructive" element of your report first, so that those people monitoring this discussion who don't like bickering can stop reading now. However you make a number of less constructive suggestions in your report to which I must, unfortunately, respond.

<It seems ironic to me that while Reid and Brownlee were insisting that these grooves were horizontal rings, they were also suggesting a theory if it was found that the groove was spiral. Why would they do that? If the grooves were as their expert testimony claimed them to be, why bother coming up with another theory in case they were not? Could it be that they came to their conclusions after examining only a photograph? Perhaps they will be forthcoming with more details of their methods and instruments for inspecting the core in subsequent posts.>

We have indicated to you already, and it should be quite clear from the photo credits in our book, that Reid and Brownlee did perform an on-site inspection. Since you did not bother to do so yourself until prompted by our work, and even then your initial impressions were exactly the same as theirs, this continual petty carping detracts from the real arguments, to noone's benefit. As to why they allowed for the possibility of spiral grooves in their explanation, we make it quite clear in the book that this was to allow for the possibility that there was some mistake in the identity of the core in question (like all of us, they have great respect for Petrie and did not wish to dismiss his evidence out of hand).

<With respect to Reid and Brownlee's assertions that the grooves were not spiral. They have been proven wrong. I am happy that Petrie is vindicated, but I find it shameful that his meticulous research was contradicted to further the agenda of the orthodox church. In my view, Lawton and Ogilvie-Herald have succumbed to some forceful arguments against the advanced machining theory and have accepted them uncritically because they lack the expertise and experience to formulate their own educated opinion. This is not the balanced treatment they claim to have taken.>

And I find it equally shameful that someone who has purported to welcome intelligent debate should be so ungracious - especially since up until now I had held our particular discussion out as a prime example of how opposed parties can move each other's understanding forward if they stick to rational argument. I will repeat to you something I have been forced to say to both Robert Bauval and John Anthony West. If you care to check with our publishers you will find that the original synopsis for our book was strongly pro-alternative in theme (since before our detailed research was conducted we felt many of these arguments appeared persuasive), and it was on this basis that it was commercially accepted. It was never our intention to further the orthodox agenda, merely to report our findings without prejudice to some overall theme in each of the many areas we had to research. The fact that we ultimately came down on the side of the orthodox camp in most, but by no means all, of these areas, was purely a reflection of our detailed research and of the quality of the arguments we uncovered on both sides. We did not accept Reid and Brownlee's forceful (your own word) arguments uncritically, we preferred them to your own because at that stage of the game they were more logical and cohesive than those presented in your book. After all, you indicate quite clearly in the book that ultrasonic machining is only one possible solution pending further research.

Chris and I will be quite happy (apart from being obliged by integrity) to update our paperback edition to reflect your further research. However I would hope that in future you remember to appreciate that this constructive approach to debate not only renders your accusations of partiality and lack of balance totally ridiculous, but has also forced you to reconsider potential areas of weakness in your arguments and strengthen them. I would hope that any reasonable person would regard that as progress.

Ian