For all the Graham Hancock Fans Out There

a reply to: one4all

And what's wrong with glorifying Mushroom trips and other hallucinogens? What's wrong with people expanding their mind and having better lives for doing hallucinogens? Do you know there is a lot of research going on at the moment regarding psycadelics and the benafits of using them?

Are you aware of the millions of people around the world who are microdosing shrooms and other psycadellics? From people suffering with severe depression, anxiety, fear of death, Ptsd, where their lives have completly changed.


How can this be a bad thing? Yrs, you eill get people who shoot it down! They believe the stigma that has been put on these medicines. Start thinking for yourself!

These medicines have changed millions of people lives for the better, me being one of them!

a reply to: Harte

You're not providing anything other than a disjointed opinion not based in fact. You're making a completely erroneous claim simply because something tangible hasn't been found means it's impossible for prior civilizations to have existed. That's ludicrous and short sighted. You think Mesopotamian's spontaneously appeared and suddenly they had mathematics, science, technology, linguistics, writing, etc? Really? All this just spontaneously occurred within a single civilization? That's laughable.

Like I said in a previous post, one day the Hawaiian islands will no longer exist. That's a proven fact. No antiquities proving Hawaii ever existed will remain behind because they will have been consumed by both lava and the sea. The Earth's crust will shift to such a degree that anyone in the future trying to locate this mythical Hawaii will make a claim such as what you are making. "No way possible there were ever people referred to as "Hawaiians" because nothing from their island civilization exists to prove it".

The Earth was much larger back in the day with a whole hell of a lot less people. Larger in that there was more coastline not yet lost to tectonic plate movement as has already been proven. Smaller populations world wide only measured in the millions. Not billions. It's highly plausible entire civilizations were lost to the ever changing coastlines.

You can look at the ancient Mayans for a great example. Not until 2016 through the use of advanced tech did we discover just how much of the ancient Mayan civilization has been lost to the jungle. There are entire pyramids completely covered by jungle growth previously thought to be nothing but a hill. Yet, there it is. Proof that the Earth easily reclaims and has the power to erase anything and everything.

a reply to: KKLOCO

Lol I do this, I've had the red book for years, almost scared to read it now.

a reply to: dfnj2015

That's an inspirational vid, I have been on MJ for like 20 years and have no doubt it has pushed my consciousness forward, but aware that it is now holding it back..... Why was that video banned?

originally posted by: 1point92AU
a reply to: Harte

You're not providing anything other than a disjointed opinion not based in fact. You're making a completely erroneous claim simply because something tangible hasn't been found means it's impossible for prior civilizations to have existed. That's ludicrous and short sighted. You think Mesopotamian's spontaneously appeared and suddenly they had mathematics, science, technology, linguistics, writing, etc? Really? All this just spontaneously occurred within a single civilization? That's laughable.

Not even what I said at all.
So, lacking any argument whatsoever, you resort to straw men.

originally posted by: 1point92AULike I said in a previous post, one day the Hawaiian islands will no longer exist. That's a proven fact. No antiquities proving Hawaii ever existed will remain behind because they will have been consumed by both lava and the sea. The Earth's crust will shift to such a degree that anyone in the future trying to locate this mythical Hawaii will make a claim such as what you are making. "No way possible there were ever people referred to as "Hawaiians" because nothing from their island civilization exists to prove it".

It takes a real idiot not to realize that the Hawaiians have left evidence all over the world.

originally posted by: 1point92AUThe Earth was much larger back in the day with a whole hell of a lot less people. Larger in that there was more coastline not yet lost to tectonic plate movement as has already been proven. Smaller populations world wide only measured in the millions. Not billions. It's highly plausible entire civilizations were lost to the ever changing coastlines.

It's barely plausible that whole cultures were lost on the coastline. That would, of course, be assuming they were too stupid to move inland at about an inch a year and the water caught up to them.

originally posted by: 1point92AU
You can look at the ancient Mayans for a great example. Not until 2016 through the use of advanced tech did we discover just how much of the ancient Mayan civilization has been lost to the jungle. There are entire pyramids completely covered by jungle growth previously thought to be nothing but a hill. Yet, there it is. Proof that the Earth easily reclaims and has the power to erase anything and everything.

Yet the Mayans were never unknown, were they?
How'd we know about them if their evidence was lost in the jungle?

Harte

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: 1point92AU
a reply to: Harte

You're not providing anything other than a disjointed opinion not based in fact. You're making a completely erroneous claim simply because something tangible hasn't been found means it's impossible for prior civilizations to have existed. That's ludicrous and short sighted. You think Mesopotamian's spontaneously appeared and suddenly they had mathematics, science, technology, linguistics, writing, etc? Really? All this just spontaneously occurred within a single civilization? That's laughable.

Not even what I said at all.
So, lacking any argument whatsoever, you resort to straw men.

originally posted by: 1point92AULike I said in a previous post, one day the Hawaiian islands will no longer exist. That's a proven fact. No antiquities proving Hawaii ever existed will remain behind because they will have been consumed by both lava and the sea. The Earth's crust will shift to such a degree that anyone in the future trying to locate this mythical Hawaii will make a claim such as what you are making. "No way possible there were ever people referred to as "Hawaiians" because nothing from their island civilization exists to prove it".

It takes a real idiot not to realize that the Hawaiians have left evidence all over the world.

originally posted by: 1point92AUThe Earth was much larger back in the day with a whole hell of a lot less people. Larger in that there was more coastline not yet lost to tectonic plate movement as has already been proven. Smaller populations world wide only measured in the millions. Not billions. It's highly plausible entire civilizations were lost to the ever changing coastlines.

It's barely plausible that whole cultures were lost on the coastline. That would, of course, be assuming they were too stupid to move inland at about an inch a year and the water caught up to them.

originally posted by: 1point92AU
You can look at the ancient Mayans for a great example. Not until 2016 through the use of advanced tech did we discover just how much of the ancient Mayan civilization has been lost to the jungle. There are entire pyramids completely covered by jungle growth previously thought to be nothing but a hill. Yet, there it is. Proof that the Earth easily reclaims and has the power to erase anything and everything.

Yet the Mayans were never unknown, were they?
How'd we know about them if their evidence was lost in the jungle?

Harte

He could be right, he could be wrong. But we need more open minded people to challenge the mainstream. Be it lost civilisations, ufos. Psycadellics etc

I think this is very important.

a reply to: Harte

LOL you don't even realize you're contradicting yourself AND proving my point. By you saying Hawaiians have left evidence of their civilization all over the world you are admitting artifacts depicting a specific civilization can in fact exist multiple places in the world OTHER than where they were actually located.

Case in point when the Hawaiian islands are consumed by the ocean and sink to untold depths they will in fact become unlocatable and no physical evidence will exist. The only "evidence" our future selves will have of Hawaiians ever existing are whatever artifacts remain depicting their civilization. However, at some point in this future there will be another alternate you arguing that because these "so called Hawaiian artifacts were not found at a location where the Hawaiians supposedly existed" the future you will argue there was never a civilization called Hawaiians and that somehow the artifacts of the so called Hawaiians are actually artifacts of another civilization.

By you making the statement that there are Hawaiian artifacts all over the world you also made Graham's point about prior civilizations existing before the Mesopotamians as well. You only know there are currently Hawaiian artifacts whose provenance can be proven because Hawaii exists today. However, 1,000,000 years from now or sooner when Hawaii is gone how would you prove it then? You can't and couldn't just like today you can't prove Graham wrong by your weak sauce "there are no artifacts depicting these prior civilizations". You literally proved my point and unintentionally validated Graham has a legitimate and plausible theory.

I still want to know how the Mesopotamians spontaneously came up with mathematics, arts, science, astronomy, and economics within a single civilization in one fell swoop. You avoided that one.

And the point I clearly made regarding the Mayan's is based on the fact we HAD THE TECHNOLOGY to discover previously unknown structures. Do you just play at trying to understand how we discover ancient civilizations or what? Absent the tech to make the discoveries then entire aspects of a civilization go undiscovered.

Once again you are asinine in your egotistical and assuming statements. You keep glossing over the number one cause of ancient civilizations disappearing. Natural disasters. Ancient coastline populations are easily wiped from existence. Just ask the Japanese how well prepared and able to evacuate their coastline they were in 2011 when a mag 9 earthquake sent a tsunami 6 miles inland devastating EVERYTHING in its path. And those were modern day buildings made of concrete rebar and steel. And yet you somehow think ancient civilizations who lived on the coastline had the ability to sustain something of that magnitude? The Earth was a hell of a lot more active back in the day. The EPICA ice cores prove how much more volatile our climate was back as far as 800,000 years ago.

I love how you have absolute answers assuming a zero margin of error. Do me a favor and pick the next Powerball numbers for us all so we can split the pot.

a reply to: 1point92AU

If Hawai went down tomorrow, Hawaiian culture would not be lost, their island might not be there but the people would live on..... In Scotland we have hundreds of islands so I would be happy to relocate them here... In God's country, they can even rename one Asgard......oops sorry wrong script, Hawai.

But anyway not all Hawains are in Hawai is the point.

a reply to: one4all

And you base your evidence on what.... Propaganda or experience? you have a tunnel like view of the world conditioned by fear, psychedelics are now being clinically trialed for many different new world disorders like anxiety and depression with excellent results..... You should try and escape the Box you have been conditioned into, some clever dude once said it's not the strongest to survive but those most Adaptable to change, or words to that effect CD

originally posted by: 1point92AU
a reply to: Harte

LOL you don't even realize you're contradicting yourself AND proving my point. By you saying Hawaiians have left evidence of their civilization all over the world you are admitting artifacts depicting a specific civilization can in fact exist multiple places in the world OTHER than where they were actually located.

Case in point when the Hawaiian islands are consumed by the ocean and sink to untold depths they will in fact become unlocatable and no physical evidence will exist. The only "evidence" our future selves will have of Hawaiians ever existing are whatever artifacts remain depicting their civilization. However, at some point in this future there will be another alternate you arguing that because these "so called Hawaiian artifacts were not found at a location where the Hawaiians supposedly existed" the future you will argue there was never a civilization called Hawaiians and that somehow the artifacts of the so called Hawaiians are actually artifacts of another civilization.

By you making the statement that there are Hawaiian artifacts all over the world you also made Graham's point about prior civilizations existing before the Mesopotamians as well. You only know there are currently Hawaiian artifacts whose provenance can be proven because Hawaii exists today. However, 1,000,000 years from now or sooner when Hawaii is gone how would you prove it then? You can't and couldn't just like today you can't prove Graham wrong by your weak sauce "there are no artifacts depicting these prior civilizations". You literally proved my point and unintentionally validated Graham has a legitimate and plausible theory.

Do you even know what a straw man argument is?
Sorry, the point proven here is mine, and you just accepted it by realizing the Hawaiians (a culture not a civilization, BTW, which is why I pointed out before that you apparently don't know the difference) would leave evidence behind, thus documenting their (previous) existence.
This is exactly my point. There exists no evidence of any previous civilizations prior to Sumer (with possible exceptions I already stated.)

originally posted by: 1point92AUI still want to know how the Mesopotamians spontaneously came up with mathematics, arts, science, astronomy, and economics within a single civilization in one fell swoop. You avoided that one.

Their math was poor, and they didn't come up with astronomy. Economics is the study of monetary (or value) systems, and they didn't come up with that either. They had no science, and art was invented a million years earlier.
Of course, if you had really wanted to know that, you already would. It's getting obvious here that you don't really want to know these things. You much prefer the comfort of your ignorance. This helps you maintain your fantasy world view.

originally posted by: 1point92AUAnd the point I clearly made regarding the Mayan's is based on the fact we HAD THE TECHNOLOGY to discover previously unknown structures. Do you just play at trying to understand how we discover ancient civilizations or what? Absent the tech to make the discoveries then entire aspects of a civilization go undiscovered.

And your point proves mine - the Mayans were well known before this technology was developed. First of all because they were still there when the West made contact. Second because they left evidence all over Mesoamerica.

originally posted by: 1point92AUOnce again you are asinine in your egotistical and assuming statements. You keep glossing over the number one cause of ancient civilizations disappearing. Natural disasters. Ancient coastline populations are easily wiped from existence. Just ask the Japanese how well prepared and able to evacuate their coastline they were in 2011 when a mag 9 earthquake sent a tsunami 6 miles inland devastating EVERYTHING in its path. And those were modern day buildings made of concrete rebar and steel. And yet you somehow think ancient civilizations who lived on the coastline had the ability to sustain something of that magnitude? The Earth was a hell of a lot more active back in the day. The EPICA ice cores prove how much more volatile our climate was back as far as 800,000 years ago.

The Japanese could vanish entirely tomorrow and a million years from now there would still be tons of evidence for their existence.
It's highly doubtful that ANY civilization arose on any coastline, since people need fresh (not salt) water and plants (agriculture) don't do well near the coast.
Every known ancient civilization arose next to a river for this reason.

originally posted by: 1point92AU
I love how you have absolute answers assuming a zero margin of error. Do me a favor and pick the next Powerball numbers for us all so we can split the pot.

There exist known, documented, answers to what you hope will remain open questions.
Looks like whenever anyone tries to provide them to you, you take umbrage because you don't want those answers to exist.
They mess with your fantasy.
Too bad. You're getting them anyway.

Harte

originally posted by: ManyMasks
a reply to: one4all

And you base your evidence on what.... Propaganda or experience? you have a tunnel like view of the world conditioned by fear, psychedelics are now being clinically trialed for many different new world disorders like anxiety and depression with excellent results..... You should try and escape the Box you have been conditioned into, some clever dude once said it's not the strongest to survive but those most Adaptable to change, or words to that effect CD

Well said!

originally posted by: ManyMasks
a reply to: 1point92AU

If Hawai went down tomorrow, Hawaiian culture would not be lost, their island might not be there but the people would live on..... In Scotland we have hundreds of islands so I would be happy to relocate them here... In God's country, they can even rename one Asgard......oops sorry wrong script, Hawai.

But anyway not all Hawains are in Hawai is the point.

Dude are you following the context in which I posed the argument regarding the Hawaiian islands as a perfect example of how an entire civilization can be erased from history with no future "proof" of it's existence aside from displaced artifacts?

We're talking millions of years from now when the Hawaiian islands have been reclaimed by the sea. Not tomorrow.

a reply to: Harte

You must be a leftist. Anytime a leftist loses an argument their only defense is an attempt to redirect, rephrase, and rebuke. You inadvertently proved Graham Hancock's theories through YOUR words.

Own it and stop deflecting.

EDIT: I definitely know what a straw man argument is and it is YOU who is propping up the straw man here. Either you are intellectually incapable of seeing this or are just blinded by rage. Pun intended.

a reply to: 1point92AU

welcome to harte university.....
don't you know.....that you must agree with harte to obtain his blessing.....he is apparently the be all to end all.....
the great Texan and Zahi Hawas and Mark Lehner have all the answers....
don't question their opinions....they are academics
history is their prerogative......how dare you have a different opinion.
you will not receive your history degree......from harte university...…
ats and harte university...…..= garbage ..…...
.

a reply to: 1point92AU

We're talking millions of years from now when the Hawaiian islands have been reclaimed by the sea. Not tomorrow.

So...Hancock bases his notions on a lack of evidence?

That's awesome. Just think of the possibilities! Unicorns exist because there is no evidence they don't!

a reply to: Phage

harte hates hancock and has been very vocal about this subject many times on this website....is this bias.??
this subjective topic is just like you with global warming ……..
a lot of members don't care for what you or harte have to push.. my opposing opinion [the pacific ocean is not rising where I live.]
science is your excuse...its as doubtful as your subjective opinions on history.....
can you blasé a trail by yourself.....or must you follow others....
I see experts not being able to prove what they preach.....
the pacific ocean is not rising where I live.....
hancock's opinion is his opinion.....I purchased his book....
where's your book or hartes to disagree…..that's right.... there is none......

a reply to: tri-lobe-1

The problem is, this is not new. For years people have been hounded, bullied, lost their jobs, and have had their lives ruined, all because they believed something, or had ideas about something that was not mainstream science.

Even popular, famous inventors, scientists etc had to go through so much trouble, until they they proved their theories right. This trend is not going to stop, as we see it in abundance today in many different fields

A lot of it is go do with arragoce and ignorance. Sure not all theories turn out to be true, but we need people to think outside the mainstream box! If we never did, then we would not be where we are today.

originally posted by: 1point92AU

originally posted by: ManyMasks
a reply to: 1point92AU

If Hawai went down tomorrow, Hawaiian culture would not be lost, their island might not be there but the people would live on..... In Scotland we have hundreds of islands so I would be happy to relocate them here... In God's country, they can even rename one Asgard......oops sorry wrong script, Hawai.

But anyway not all Hawains are in Hawai is the point.

Dude are you following the context in which I posed the argument regarding the Hawaiian islands as a perfect example of how an entire civilization can be erased from history with no future "proof" of it's existence aside from displaced artifacts?

We're talking millions of years from now when the Hawaiian islands have been reclaimed by the sea. Not tomorrow.

No civilization arose on the Hawaiian Islands.

Harte

originally posted by: 1point92AU
a reply to: Harte

You must be a leftist. Anytime a leftist loses an argument their only defense is an attempt to redirect, rephrase, and rebuke. You inadvertently proved Graham Hancock's theories through YOUR words.

Own it and stop deflecting.

EDIT: I definitely know what a straw man argument is and it is YOU who is propping up the straw man here. Either you are intellectually incapable of seeing this or are just blinded by rage. Pun intended.

You SAY this, but can't point out any straw men I've constructed. Not a single one.
On the other hand, your argument has become "Harte hates Hancock."
I don't hate Hancock. I HAVE discovered that he's a liar, though.

See? Your "Harte hates Hancock" is a straw man because whatever I feel about Hancock has nothing to do with the factual information I've provided and my argument is the same for ANY of the hundreds of fringe con-men that propose ancient lost civilizations.

You make up a position that you want me to take (Harte hates Hancock) and then argue against that.
That is a classic straw man argument, and you use it because you can't address anything I've said in any logical manner.

Harte

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: tri-lobe-1

The problem is, this is not new. For years people have been hounded, bullied, lost their jobs, and have had their lives ruined, all because they believed something, or had ideas about something that was not mainstream science.

Even popular, famous inventors, scientists etc had to go through so much trouble, until they they proved their theories right.

Got any evidence or examples of the above, or are you just saying this because it makes you feel good?

originally posted by: Jay-morrisSure not all theories turn out to be true, but we need people to think outside the mainstream box! If we never did, then we would not be where we are today.

You need to educate yourself in this matter. Science is constantly thinking outside the box. Constantly.
Every day - by the thousands of researchers.
Yet you'd have us believe that only liars and con men trying to sell books (and tickets to "lectures") are trailblazing paths outside the box.

Harte