posted on Aug, 14 2014 @ 04:57 PM
Graham Hancock, like most in his field, has somewhat less of that carefully developed authoritative image that the shark tank of peer reviewed
academia apparently trains mainstream academics radiate from their hair, from their clothes, from their tone of voice, etc, but unlike certain people
in the field, he does not entirely lack it. On top of being British he has the advantage of being a journalist who actually goes where the story is.
I don't think it's fair to call him controlled opposition either, because what is he opposing? The idea that the Earth is 5000 years old? The idea
that everything there is to know about history is already taught at Harvard? The idea that psychedelics can never cause a revolutionary change in
understanding that redirects ones life? Nobody in a position to put Graham where he is would seriously believe or expect us to believe any of the
above. As has been said, he's just enthusiastically ahead of the curve on where the mainstream is going to end up going, and though he probably will
or has overshot the unknowable truth just a bit, he's roughly the same distance from it if not closer to it than the mainstream.
Above all though I don't doubt his sincerity for a moment. When I look at certain theorists and their hair who shall remain nameless, I can see that
they're just a showman and they want anyone who isn't highly credulous to just roll their eyes and walk away without a discussion. I don't get that
vibe from Hancock. He DOES want to argue with heavies because he knows his intellect is no less valid than theirs and that he's looking at the same
evidence plus a few pieces they left out. The tradeoff is that he doesn't have their scientific training and institutional resources, but he holds
his own well never the less.
I also noticed in his interviews on Coast to Coast that when he has to go a different way from a colleague he does it respectfully- specifically
referring with his hesitation to go quite as far back with ancient civilizations as Robert Buval. That's a touch of class often missing in the
conspiracy world, and reinforces that he is sincere, because the ones who fall upon their own kind are the ones who just say stuff, and they know that
if everyone just says stuff they will contradict, therefore somebody has to be kicked out of the canon.
I haven't read his books though I've wanted to. I'm a lazy American and yet if I'm ever sitting still long enough to read a book I'm either
driving or too intoxicated to digest a book, so I've gotten my dose of him through Coast to Coast, The Joe Rogan Experience, and Quest for the Lost
Civilization mainly, and of course ATS.
Finally I like the fact that his narrative makes sense.
The official story as far as I've managed to read it (they don't teach it in schools because kids ask the most devastatingly simple questions) has
massive gaps- modern humans, despite being less suited to the cold than their more compact burlier hairier cousins just happened to evolve right about
the time the last glaciation began, and spent about 50,000 years learning to talk, draw, knap, skin, and sew, then just kept changing those
technologies and not developing much new for another 40,000 years, then as soon as the ice disappeared it only took them around 6,000 years to learn
how to build a pyramid- with no failed attempts or small scale models known to have survived... and it keeps running into things like Gobekli Tepe
which force us to change the timeline.
His narrative takes you fairly smoothly from animal intelligence to civilized intelligence, spread out over the entire period of the record, with
documented and extremely plausible explanations for gaps (glaciation, sea level change, etc)