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.

 

Graham Hancock is one of the best researchers

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 11:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
...please, read over the articles, i personally found the articles informing harte


Thank you, Madness. I appreciate that at least somebody read through them. I've got a million similar links (not about Hancock) in my favorites file, collected over the years.

Truth is, I need to go through all my saved links. I'm sure that several are probably dead by now. It's just that I have soooooo many. I also need to categorize them better. I must have 50 links to info that can be used to debunk Billy Meier's predictions alone. Probably don't even need them anymore. Nobody believes that guy anymore anyway.

Sorry, that's off-topic.

Harte




posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 11:39 PM
link   
It's superficial to the part of the overall history that it's relevant to. The site the carbon dated thing was relating to is not really central or the most important thing to the overall picture Hancock has reported on



posted on Jun, 10 2006 @ 11:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by Kilik11
It's superficial to the part of the overall history that it's relevant to. The site the carbon dated thing was relating to is not really central or the most important thing to the overall picture Hancock has reported on


it's representative to the credibility of the researcher in question, that's enought to make it more than superficially relevent.



posted on Jun, 12 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   
well, IMO he doesn't seem to be like, dishonest or anything really



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 05:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kilik11
well, IMO he doesn't seem to be like, dishonest or anything really


No, I wouldn't say he's dishonest, just not very thorough in his research and somewhat selective in the sources he quotes.

I guess his main crime is not letting the truth get in the way of a good story ..... Typical tabloid journalism really.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kilik11
well, IMO he doesn't seem to be like, dishonest or anything really


It really does look like you like Hancock...you're right back in that corner, like he is time and time again.

Accept it, the guy makes his information up. Everytime he is challenged he backs right into the corner and makes himself look like an idiot. Anyone can right a book, anyone can make up information and it is thanks to people like him those interested in alternative history never get taken seriously.

He has done so much harm, yet people still think he is helping us. It is thanks to people like him that we'll never get taken seriously.



posted on Jun, 13 2006 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Odium

Originally posted by Kilik11
well, IMO he doesn't seem to be like, dishonest or anything really


It really does look like you like Hancock...you're right back in that corner, like he is time and time again.

He has done so much harm, yet people still think he is helping us. It is thanks to people like him that we'll never get taken seriously.


Hancock is a pretty good writer. He does weave some lovely tales of fantasy. But his books sell better as "alternate history" so that's the way he does it.

And he does do harm. He causes untold numbers of his readers to mistrust serious scientists that are only trying to do their jobs. People that spend years and years returning six months out of every year to some of the most inhospitable places on Earth, just hoping to find a pottery shard, a piece of clay tablet, even a single tooth.
It's in Hancock's method to take a fact that an individual spent almost an entire lifetime (sometimes even entire lifetimes) attempting to establish, and use that fact to support something totally unrelated, some theory of his that trashes some other person's lifework, all without Hancock turning a single spadefull of ancient dirt.

But that's a personality issue, though if he were affecting my lifeswork, I'd certainly be upset about it. To people like me, non-archaeologists that have at least some faith in real scientific researchers, Hancock's damage is more subtle, but even more hurtful. When Hancock stumbles over a real "mystery" concerning ancient civilizations, and uses his idiotic and demonstrably false "evidence" to support whatever inane theory he proposes about the mystery, he contaminates the mystery as far as it concerns people with sufficient background to actually look into it.

This is an artifact of the way this sort of science is done, and shouldn't be seen as a fault of the researchers themselves. These researchers depend on grants in order to have the funds to do their work. They do not produce anything of any monetary value (usually) in doing their work, so these grants are hard to come by. Agencies and other entities that give these grants do so expecting results. They are unwilling to grant funding to an investigation of a thing which has been proposed (or even speculated about) by a pseudoscientist like Hancock. This is because of his previous record of being wrong on most accounts, and of fabricating, skewing, or otherwise monkeying with other people's findings to support his speculations. In the end, it often happens that things which could have been seriously investigated never are, or such investigations are delayed for decades, because of this pseudoscientific "contamination."

And that, in a nutshell, is my problem with Hancock and his ilk. His method actually hurts the very field he claims interest in. I have no doubt that Hancock knows this, so I can see no reason for him to operate thusly other than monetary gain.

Harte



posted on Jun, 26 2006 @ 11:10 AM
link   
Well I am actually in favour of Graham Hancock's message, although I agree he is capable of displaying biased evidence to forward his case.

BUT how can religions all over the world speak of a disaster that wiped out most of humanity? The DNA evidence shows that we went down to a very small pool of humans, I've heard 1000-7000 quoted before although I have not dug out the actual figure. Now thats wher Graham Hancock falls down, not quoting sources and being so wrapped up in his theory that it gets in the way of the science.

I remember falling in love with the idea that he portrayed, the Quest for the Lost Civilisation was spellbinding. However I found out a few things a few years later that kind of shattered my rosy view of the whole thing. I do however feel that he is looking at the whole thing in a very good way.

The problem today is you have specialist scientists and if they want to be paid the big money they have to specialise so much they can't be very active in any other field. Now I know im generalising here, but its obvious to see scientists working in isolation.How many archaeologist when trying to understand how a culture used an artifact or discovered their technologies.

I tend to agree with Hancock that the answer lies in the religions of the cultures involved. The whole picture needs examining with an open mind, not ignoring the facts but not being as damn rigid as current scientists.

I am very interested in his new book though, as I'm a psychedelic explorer and feel the geometric patterns experienced are resonating throughout all levels of nature and consciousness.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trojan_libidoBUT how can religions all over the world speak of a disaster that wiped out most of humanity?

Answer: many of them don't speak about this.


The problem today is you have specialist scientists and if they want to be paid the big money they have to specialise so much they can't be very active in any other field.


I'm sorry.... but scientists as a rule aren't paid that highly! Engineers, yes. Chemists... sometimes. Archaeologists and paleontologists -- try $40-$50k/year. Field crew makes $10/hour.


Now I know im generalising here, but its obvious to see scientists working in isolation.How many archaeologist when trying to understand how a culture used an artifact or discovered their technologies.


Erm, can I suggest you join your state archaeological association and go on a few digs or take a class in archaeology? Archaeologists in fact know quite a bit about this... many of them make museum level reproductions for schools and demonstrations of ancient technology. We had one show up in our class who was an archer and showed us his bows made in the same way that ancient AmerInd bows were made (5,000 years ago.) He hunts deer with them.

Another one I know specializes in woven material. He weaves mats and other fiber material for the White Shaman site. And so on and so forth...

Scientists almost never work in isolation and papers are always reviewed by colleagues. And as for being "closed minded", they always get labeled that by someone who doesn't like it that the scientist dismissed (seemingly offhandedly) their theory that the Flying Spaghetti Monster built Stonehenge (or whatever your favorite theory migh be).

You've been fed a LOT of misinformation, there!



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 02:57 AM
link   
Maybe not every single religion there is, I mean come on.

I would have thought a chemist etc. is a scientist... Lets forget the pay, the fact they've worked in one area for a LONG time is enough to make them dismissive of alternate theories that contradict their area.

When I say working in isolation I mean within their fields and I'm also generalising of course, but Im sure the answer to humanities history wont be found exclusively in bits of pottery but in a combination of scientific and cultural fields.

"You've been fed a LOT of misinformation, there! " - I'm afraid I wasn't fed any misinformation but rather made a quick post to sympathise with the OP and tell of my love story with his fiction.

I agree with others that say GHancock is unscientific and a bit one minded.

However I will still be getting his new book, Supernatural, because I'm very interested in hallucinogenic plants and thats what he goes about exploring. He comes to his conclusion that is unorthodox, probably mental again and includes Aliens, but hey, reading about him tripping and also hallucinogenics in ancient societies will be fun.



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 07:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Trojan_libido
I've heard 1000-7000 quoted before although I have not dug out the actual figure.


It was 70,000 years ago - about the time of the Mount Toba Supervolcano eruption, and one of the most extreme cold periods of the last Ice Age.

www.bradshawfoundation.com...

One of the strong arguments against a more recent global catastrophe is that there is no genetic bottleneck around the time period proposed (usually c11,600 years ago).



posted on Jun, 28 2006 @ 09:10 AM
link   
"The DNA evidence shows that we went down to a very small pool of humans, I've heard 1000-7000", I never said when tbh.



posted on Aug, 23 2006 @ 02:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Kilik11
I think his background in journalism is why he can find the facts, and get to the real story of what's going on better than most conventional scientists.

No, it's the reason he can ignore the facts that have been discovered and verified by scientists.
His background in journalism does serve him well, though. It is this background that allows him to write fantasy and make it seem like reality to you.


Originally posted by Kilik11No one can deny that what many conventional scientists do is stick their head in the sand when it comes to a lot of these things. Those people as much as they claim to be sicentists and objective, are clearly not being anything close to as objective as hancock.


Scientists are interested in evidence, not speculation. Hancock literally avoids evidence at every turn. This is because the evidence, though convincing, actually contradicts what he says. That doesn't sell many books.


Originally posted by Kilik11That's why he finds the truth, while they study pottery shard after pattery shard, not actually knowing anything about that time really, whereas Graham Hancock finds the actual context of the finds.

That is one of the most asurd statements I've ever read at ATS. What, in your mind, constitutes "context?" Listen up, the pottery shards are the "context."


Originally posted by Kilik11Grahm Hancock finds the "keys", to interet the past

Watch out or he'll "find the keys" to your safe deposit box.

Harte


I know this thread is probably long forgotten but I needed to address some of the things you are saying in your replies. Primarily to that of Shinn. He was shown to completely contradict himself on 3 separate occasions when it came to Bimini. Also, what qualifications did he have for archeology? He had a BS in Geology up to 1998 when he was given an honorary PH.D. for his writings. The guy was never qualified to do anything on Bimini. If you would read the article that was given (the mysterious-america link) you will see in his own words how he seems to jump around direct questions on these contradictions. Then he even goes so far as to say that Bimini was just for fun. It wasn't scrutinized as much as a "real" job would have been because his peers wouldn't be checking it out as much. Nice statement to make about something that has been often talked about.

I mean, he man didn't even know of the other ancient harbors that are sunken across the globe. They have been verified to be such and are virtually identical to the formation at Bimini and yet he makes the statement "they are probably natural formations too" without having ANY knowledge on them. This guy is a joke for what he does and his writings need to be scrutinized. His first posting in 1978 completely, and I mean 180 degrees, contradicts what he wrote in 2004. So, how can you believe someone that pays so little attention to detail?

Also, as to the carbon dating, that was done by a student that was LEARNING the process and was later refuted by none other than Shinn himself! He wrote an article on the carbon dating process when applied to beachrock and states that the results are unreliable because of natural occuring carbon particles in the ocean that work their way into the stone. He even stated that this can significantly change the dates to much earlier than they truly are. So, another contradiction.

It appears that this is a matter of ego instead of science. He doesn't want to "look bad" so he is trying to stick by his very rusty guns.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 04:47 AM
link   
Well I've just finished Graham Hancocks Supernatural and although the content begins well, he fearlessly treads into fairytales again, literally. However this time I don't think he is making it up as I have direct experience with the shamanic state.

So here's a brief post summarising the content and drawing my own conclusions:

I just wondered what peoples opinion on the similarities between UFO abductees and Shaman callings.

UFO - experience lights, standard UFO shaped objects in the sky and floating before suddenly being inside a circular room.

The abductee usually received telepathic communication calming them down, and a variety of procedures are carried out, some sexual. They are taken apart and rebuilt with strange objects inserted into them, which are never identified afterwards btw. They often believe they are taken several times in their lives.

Shaman - recieves his calling when ill or at near death. He experiences being in a cave or underground cavern. He has visions of entities, usually half-human half-animal hybrids who telepathically tell him to stay calm. They remove all his flesh and count his bones to make sure he can become a shaman. They then rebuild him and put rocks with crystals in his eyes and body. Then he is given the knowledge of plants and the power to heal.

I have seen shaman drawn pictures and often they will paint UFO style objects in the sky. '___', the most potent hallucinogen, is used in shamanic rituals. It also occurs naturally in the human body and may have links to experiences in sleep, birth and death.

I believe that instead of having half-hearted people in the medical circles - who have trained but do not have necessary personality or traits to actually care for other people, we should be identifying these abductees and possibly training them as doctors and nurses.

We need to embrace our past, Shamanism is a very very old tradition and actually cares about its environment.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 08:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd
Flying Spaghetti Monster





Oh mercy!........ That was funny.

Thanks for the laugh Byrd!



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 11:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by VelvetSplash

Originally posted by Byrd
Flying Spaghetti Monster





Oh mercy!........ That was funny.

Thanks for the laugh Byrd!


What? You never saw a flying spaghetti monster? Believe me! They are NOT FUNNY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


hehe



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 12:05 PM
link   
Trojan_libido

read supernatural not that long ago, i think he hits a nerve with this anyone whos had psycadelic expiriences should read it if they want a way of understanding them



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 12:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Byrd

Originally posted by Trojan_libido

The problem today is you have specialist scientists and if they want to be paid the big money they have to specialise so much they can't be very active in any other field.


I'm sorry.... but scientists as a rule aren't paid that highly! Engineers, yes. Chemists... sometimes. Archaeologists and paleontologists -- try $40-$50k/year. Field crew makes $10/hour.



I had on average 3 months out of the year where we all worked for the LOVE of it and all the FREE BEER you could drink!

GH just sells books and takes poetic license to a new level.

I recommend, for a starting place: After the Ice: A Global Human History 20,000-5000 BC, by Steven Mithen.
I've dug and shard hunted a couple of these sites and have studied the findings of most the others. Great book for those who have a none Anthro background.



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by fred3110
Trojan_libido

read supernatural not that long ago, i think he hits a nerve with this anyone whos had psycadelic expiriences should read it if they want a way of understanding them



Hypnagogia has been the cause of most if not all incubus and succubus legends as well as modern alien abduction experiences. Trips are all in your own mind.

Now that being said, I have had things happen in my own mind that led me to this interesting book: The Cosmic Serpent, DNA and the Origins of Knowledge, by Jeremy Narby.

The Mind is a terrible thing to unleash!



posted on Aug, 24 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   
how can my mind fabricate something i dont know and have never seen?

HALLUCINATION> The false perception of a sight, sound, taste, smell, or touch when no actual stimulus is present.

and what i find weird is if it is false, how could two people expirience the same "false" thing?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join