posted on Nov, 22 2005 @ 03:27 PM
I have been a big fan of Graham Hancock since I read "Fingerprints of the Gods". If you have ever read anything that he has written, you will see
for your selves that his writing is concise, based (for the most part) on sound research, and he doesn't lead the reader to any outlandish
conclusions. His approach is more of a deconstruction of traditional archaeology in which he provides the reader facts and allows them to make their
His basic argument is that civilization stretches back much further then what we have been led to believe. He also theorizes that many ancient
structures are astrolonomically aligned with the constellations as they were in 10 500 BC. Some of the structures he mentions are the great pyramids,
angkor wat, the pyramids of China just to name a few.
"Modern" archaeologists of course find his theories to be a outlandish fantasies and they steadfastly argue that modern civilizations didn't arise
until around 5000 BC in mesopotamia. These archaeologists surmise that the rise of civilization was due to the emergence of switching from a nomadic
lifestyle into a sedintary one. This shift gave way to modern agriculture and boom, civilization began.
There are many legends of lost continents and lands, Atlantis, Lemuria and MU, but again modern archaology says, nope, just legends pure and simple.
Time and time again these PHD wielding, arm-chair archaologists are being proven wrong, yet somehow their theories are allowed to stay in tact. Yes,
nobody wants their life's work to be proven wrong, and thus I can understand their resistance to letting a guy like Hancock come along and
disembowell their research, but when will their be some light shed on this issue in the mainstream media!?
Now, I am not saying that Hancock has it all figured out, but I can say with some confidence that he is on to something. Something BIG. His research
has taken him to places where no archaeologists dare go; underwater. And did he find ancient structures? Yes, he did. Off the coast of Japan and in
the bay of Cambray in India. The freaky thing about these megalithic structures is that for them to have been built on land it would have had to have
been done a long time ago, 10000BC at least?
So I guess what I am trying to say here is; is history as we know it fundamentally wrong? How can we know where we are going in the future if we
don't even know where we've been? I think there is a big, black hole where the ancient past is concerned. And I guess if you want to take it to
the next level, is this subject being avoided for a reason?