It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the Gobleki Tepi Vulture stone a record of Younger Dryas Comet strike?

page: 2
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 09:48 PM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

Thanks for the links. I'll be glad to check them out.

I’m really not a great fan of Hancock, I respect him and appreciate his efforts but am not a super fan of those theories he and Robert Bauval put forth.




posted on Apr, 28 2017 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Willtell

Cool,
When you try to talk about this subject with some science minded people all they remember is Hancocks name and their eyes roll back in their heads and lose all ablility to reason beyond that.

"Arthur to Exodus" ,by Mike Baillie, the well respected denro chronologist, delves into his search for a cosmic causes to the climate downturns of the mid late bronze age(1600ish bc-exodus) and the 530s ad climate event(arthur), he has recognized aa a side to his extensive dendro chronology work.
In the twenty years since publishing the book he has ruled out a cosmic source in favor of volcanic events, but has identified several other downturns in the early bronze age that cannot be attributed to a volcanic source. This series of events seems to have a periodicity to them, and they correlate to periods of well documented social upheaval.

ill dig that pdf out and post a link to that fantastic paper
edit on p0000004k00452017Fri, 28 Apr 2017 23:00:09 -0500k by punkinworks10 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 12:47 AM
link   
a reply to: punkinworks10

There’s so many holes in mainstream science, archeology and archeoastronomy in particular, to drive a Mack truck through, so I appreciate well researched and alternative ideas to the mainstream dogma anytime and will give it a hearing.

Many of Hancock’s theories, though, such as the pyramids and star alignments are just not too earth shattering to me.


The idea of Atlantis survivors going around restarting their “divine” yet destroyed civilization in areas like Egypt and Sumer is an interesting theory, but challenging of course, but I do like that one better than his Egyptology theories which I have little interest in



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 04:27 AM
link   
The more Hancock and his kind anger the orthodox the better as far as I am concerned, plus it is quite amusing to view the orthodox being triggered by the mere mention of their names.

so it's quiet OK for the orthodox to publish a book about history...but if the unorthodox does it's not OK....both groups are asking for money......

Is Hancock forcing the orthodox to change????....is he forcing his books on the orthodox?????

Are the orthodox jealous of Hancocks' book sales and the traveling to the ends of the earth visiting historic sites and making a living out of his interests????.....is that not free enterprise and western capitalism????...

Whats the old saying???......those that can do.. those that can't loiter in the classroom.....



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 05:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: tri-lobe-1
Are the orthodox jealous of Hancocks' book sales and the traveling to the ends of the earth visiting historic sites and making a living out of his interests????.....is that not free enterprise and western capitalism????...

Whats the old saying???......those that can do.. those that can't loiter in the classroom.....


Acme of absurdity.
Is Hancock excavating Gobekli Tepe?
Did Hancock discover the glyphs in the GP relieving chambers?
Did Hancock come up with the YD Impact Hypothesis?

Hancock made his bones by simply restating previously disproven claims (without providing the info that they had been disproven) made by previous authors in his book "Fingerprints of the Gods." Any material he's published since then follows that same pattern primarily. Where it doesn't, the book sales flop.

Harte



posted on Apr, 29 2017 @ 06:01 AM
link   
a reply to: tri-lobe-1

im sure that Hancock is free to publish what he wants. Its just that there is no prerequisite for others to agree with him. In fact, that is what science is: publishing studies and allowing your peers in the field to review your work and error check it. When Hancock gets to the error checking part, people raise issues.

I like Hancock personally, although I don't think he publishes any real truth. He was an "in" for me into the field, and I think he interests a lot of people who may end up digging deeper further down the road to find out that he's making up stuff and then foray into the actual true research.



new topics

top topics
 
13
<< 1   >>

log in

join