For all the Graham Hancock Fans Out There

originally posted by: 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

One example is the ufo subject! If you have any interest in the subject you will know about the ridicule that comes with it if you are a respected person even talking about the subject. Should not have go name names, as it's common knowledge that this is the case.

What are these people doing? They are thinking outside the box, and in doing so, puts their job on the line, and their reputation.

Are you saying that no person who held a scientific view, or theory that was outside the box was never ridiculed , or lost their job?

Are you really saying that?

originally posted by: Jay-morris

originally posted by: 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

One example is the ufo subject! If you have any interest in the subject you will know about the ridicule that comes with it if you are a respected person even talking about the subject. Should not have go name names, as it's common knowledge that this is the case.

What are these people doing? They are thinking outside the box, and in doing so, puts their job on the line, and their reputation.

Are you saying that no person who held a scientific view, or theory that was outside the box was never ridiculed , or lost their job?

Are you really saying that?

No, I asked for evidence/examples.
I note that you haven't provided any.
Does that mean you don't have any?
Because, if so, then ...

Harte

a reply to: Harte

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

God I hate this belief system! So, all the people you disagree with Are doing it all for money, to sell books! Sigh!

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: entermemo
Any ATSers live near St. Louis? Graham is giving a lecture here on 6/9. I cannot wait, I've been a fan of his since Sign and Seal came out.

Be sure to ask him why his invisible civilization left no archaeological indication of its existence in NA and of course also ask him when he realized he was was wrong about the lost civilization being in Antarctica - which he previously claimed?

His new book is NOT about ancient advanced civilization in America. It is about moving the timeline further back from the Clovis First hypothesis.

And how do you know there isn’t a lost ancient civilization under the ice in Antarctica?

I will be attending the 4 hour event in Sedona with Graham next week. I’ll be able to give a better summary after that event. I showed up twice to the first event (start time said 4 not 7). Needless to say, I was exhausted by the time it started. Apologies for not providing a better summary of the first.

But I will say this again. His new book is NOT about advanced ancient civilizations in America. It IS about disproving the Clovis First hypotheses. And that humans were in America much farther back than 12,000 years ago.

Ignoring the bickering going on here, did anyone get to go to the talk yesterday in Denver?
Or if not, how were the recent ones?
I have never heard him speak but Magicians of the Gods was very good.
It also had a lot of evidence backing up his claims for a large flood on a nearly global scale.

originally posted by: Phage
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!

This poster Harte clearly hates Hancock yet in one fell swoop he (Harte) tried to use the very same line of logic to disprove Hancock that Hancock uses to make his claims. You hypocrites all have one thing in common.

You're hypocrites.

Sounds like you're cornered.

Harte

originally posted by: KKLOCO

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: entermemo
Any ATSers live near St. Louis? Graham is giving a lecture here on 6/9. I cannot wait, I've been a fan of his since Sign and Seal came out.

Be sure to ask him why his invisible civilization left no archaeological indication of its existence in NA and of course also ask him when he realized he was was wrong about the lost civilization being in Antarctica - which he previously claimed?

His new book is NOT about ancient advanced civilization in America.

At the bottom of it all, is most certainly is.

This lost civilization, he says, was roughly equivalent to Napoleonic Europe in terms of its technological development, but operated under “opaque” principles that modern people cannot understand. It had something of a Star Trek-style Prime Directive that prevented it from sharing its technology with less-developed peoples, but Hancock speculates that they gave the Clovis people their distinctive fluted projectile points as a mark of their favor. He wonders if other American cultures turned against the Clovis people after the comet hit and killed off the Atlanteans because they were “too close” to the “gods” from Atlantis who were blamed for the disaster. There is no way to evaluate this statement except as a fantasy. “This is a serious question,” Hancock responds, “not a frivolous question, and we may anticipate the skeptical response” (439).

Colavito

Harte

a reply to: Harte

A source from a review of the book.... thanks, but no thanks. I heard this exact phrase from Graham’s mouth, in person — “America Before is not about adavanced ancient civilizations in North America”.

Harte, if you don’t read his work, how on earth could you know what he writes about?

Let’s just say it again ‘For all the Graham Hancock fans out there’.

Unfortunately for you, It does not say ‘For all the shills out there’.

originally posted by: Harte
Sounds like you're cornered.

Harte

You're not paying attention. I'm not arguing for or against Hancock. I'm pointing out the fallacy in your argument. It's the single biggest hypocrisy on ATS. Those who seek to disprove a claim use the exact same logic attempting to disprove the claim the claimant uses to prove their claim.

In your own words you used the very same logic Hancock used and yet you didn't even realize it. It's called argument from ignorance. When you assert something is false because it has not been proven true. Then you turned right around and asserted something was true because it has not been proven false.

originally posted by: KKLOCO

originally posted by: Hanslune

originally posted by: entermemo
Any ATSers live near St. Louis? Graham is giving a lecture here on 6/9. I cannot wait, I've been a fan of his since Sign and Seal came out.

Be sure to ask him why his invisible civilization left no archaeological indication of its existence in NA and of course also ask him when he realized he was was wrong about the lost civilization being in Antarctica - which he previously claimed?

His new book is NOT about ancient advanced civilization in America. It is about moving the timeline further back from the Clovis First hypothesis.

And how do you know there isn’t a lost ancient civilization under the ice in Antarctica?

(Almost Laughed at that one, welcome to the world of crackpots! .............. )


everythingselectric.com/petroglyphs-2/

(anything before the homosapien is fake, its wasn't that important with god to correct extrapolation of the evidences, however they go there)

1. Cain and Cainan - 2,000,000 B.C. (two names)
2. Enoch and Enoch - around 30000 B.C. (two names)
3. Noah and the Clovis/Rainbow - around 10000 B.C. (noah/noe, two names)
4. Abraham the Homosapien - around 2000 B.C. (abram/abraham, two names)

(Jesus was numbered at 8 days/12 years/30 years and 100 pounds) (these match the double name usages in the geneology of genesis but lets see)

Actually your question is about the earth formation, prior to 10,000 B.C. ................... (nothing existed before the homosapien) ................... God performed a measurement in the new universe, that "singularity" whatever it was went away .............. then god performed the "creation days", life and its processes took place over a longer period of time before God terminated all life in the earth into dust/ashes .................. then the pyramid builders were introduced they were already in the original "singularity", so they were articulated at that time, around 10000 B.C. but they were also killed off.

the homosapien was created out of "dust" literally, as there was nothing, so people were just formed with some knowledge, and they adopted that knowledge and their surroundings to themselves the rest is a combination of paganism and real gospel history.

around 30,000 B.C. was a mid-extinction, not a full extinction, probably better around mid to early within the 30,000 years, it was not a full extinction...................in the photograph of the planet ceres, it shows before and after, the earth's core cooled and it was very rough over time, the earth was not very well rounded, but a cataclysm, made the earth seem more rounded. this probably originated the first........pre-pre-pre-pre-pre homosapiens.

so they existed for at least 16 to 20k, years before complete extermination and the introduction of the pyramid builders.................

these ............ pre-pre-pre-pre-pre homosapiens you can call the civilization before the clovis era (of the pyramid builders)

(time is categorized at the point of articulation of the homosapien, these dates are only relative to the biblical and creation accounts, they are otherwise invalid and impossible to prove, a great deal of history is the same, contrived, but based loosely on truth)

1. Andromeda Galaxy distance from our own (about 200,000k)
2. Mars Distance from our Sun (about 30k)
3. Hypothical 9th Planet Distance or the Non Period Comet Elenin with the 10000 year orbit
4. You can say the recorded Deluges, or just simply the homosapian

(Adam to Noah's Genealogy ........... then Shem to Abraham's Genealogy .................. God recreated everything from dust/ash that is why the evolutionary chain of "shem (passover)" does not come first .................... it is compared to generational decay of ethnicity in the gross sin of mankind, so there are no unique races more then there is only sin, or "dead flesh", that is why god writes it like that)

(the conclusion is global death sudden without warning attributed to "dead flesh", that is good to see them as furious like wild animals until the moment they die, and humanity with it ................... technically NO ADVANCED CIVILIZATIONS, God formed them they way the wanted them to appear and operate, as pyramid builders, the generations without sin ................ you have gross paganism based off what good mercy god left for the people to adapt themselves with ................. (so in a sense, they tried to understand things, but since they didn't do a good job of that, our translations and accounts are more accurate, then we go back and make them appear more intelligent then they are, and then we pump money and resources in their countries and they commit genocides for pleasures)

originally posted by: KKLOCO
a reply to: Harte

A source from a review of the book.... thanks, but no thanks. I heard this exact phrase from Graham’s mouth, in person — “America Before is not about adavanced ancient civilizations in North America”.

Harte, if you don’t read his work, how on earth could you know what he writes about?

Let’s just say it again ‘For all the Graham Hancock fans out there’.

Unfortunately for you, It does not say ‘For all the shills out there’.

Here you claim that Hancock's latest book is not about knowledge given to ancient Americans by an advanced civilization that was completely destroyed by an impact event. Please note the quote from the very same book that appears in the excerpt I provided.

If you read his works, how can you not know what they are about?
This could explain why you believe all his BS. You can't (or won't) read well enough to even understand his claims.

Harte

originally posted by: 1point92AU

originally posted by: Harte
Sounds like you're cornered.

Harte

You're not paying attention. I'm not arguing for or against Hancock. I'm pointing out the fallacy in your argument. It's the single biggest hypocrisy on ATS. Those who seek to disprove a claim use the exact same logic attempting to disprove the claim the claimant uses to prove their claim.

In your own words you used the very same logic Hancock used and yet you didn't even realize it. It's called argument from ignorance. When you assert something is false because it has not been proven true. Then you turned right around and asserted something was true because it has not been proven false.

In your mind, the book is NOT about an ancient civilization passing off knowledge, so it's understandable that you don't understand the difference between evidence and proof - and probably a great many other things as well.

However, that does not excuse you from putting words in other people's mouths so that you can pretend to be arguing against them. You display here your utter inability to follow an argument and the complete bankruptcy of your thinking.

Harte

originally posted by: Jay-morris
a reply to: Harte

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

God I hate this belief system! So, all the people you disagree with Are doing it all for money, to sell books! Sigh!

Are they selling books and lecture tickets, or are they not selling books and lecture tickets?

How many books and paid lectures are Archaeologists doing? Are they making a living from selling books and lecture tickets?

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
How many books and paid lectures are Archaeologists doing? Are they making a living from selling books and lecture tickets?

In the archeology class I took in college, the profession seemed to involve a lot of sitting around in damp holes scraping and brushing dirt away from old broken pottery.

That being said, when the sun goes down and the digging is done, those guys and gals know how to party.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Harte
How many books and paid lectures are Archaeologists doing? Are they making a living from selling books and lecture tickets?

In the archeology class I took in college, the profession seemed to involve a lot of sitting around in damp holes scraping and brushing dirt away from old broken pottery.

And you can watch them for free.

originally posted by: Blue ShiftThat being said, when the sun goes down and the digging is done, those guys and gals know how to party.

When you're living the life of a field archaeologist, most days (nights) that's about all there is to do.
Plus, it helps take your mind off the fact that you haven't found anything in two months.

Harte

originally posted by: Harte
When you're living the life of a field archaeologist, most days (nights) that's about all there is to do.
Plus, it helps take your mind off the fact that you haven't found anything in two months.

I remember when we got all excited because somebody actually found a diagnostic pottery shard! Yeah, the thrills were non-stop.

a reply to: Harte

Cheers mate....some of us that like Hancock's ideas about ancient civilizations know he reaches a lot. The inner romantic in me totally believe in the possibility of Ancient Civilizations....But the even bigger skeptic in me knows a lot of your counter points make total sense.

Even as I type this I think about the rumored ancient city of Sheba. I think a desert could wipe them away....but with ground penetrating radar we would find evidence of something. I feel your pain....sometimes you answer a question with precise knowledge and it's swept away by nonsense. Your argument that our technology strips away the hidden layers we might not see and if there was an Atlantis....we would find all evidence of their buildings like we have with the Maya. Personally I find all these recent discoveries related to CA and SA are really undermining a core argument of the Atlantis crowd--namely that the Aztecs, Mayas, and Incas didn't settle into previously built cities.

Me too...Fingerprints Of The Gods was a n eye opener...Why do you think he's reluctant to identify the Lost Civilization his arguments always refer to...He doesnt seem to place much faith in the Ancient Astronaut Theory but he doesnt seem to identify the Lost Civilization...His views on Gobleki Tepe seem to suggest that he is agreeable to the Denisovan hypothesis but I havent seen him go further than that..