Graham Hancock is one of the best researchers

Hancock is a self confessed anarchist and despises hierarchies and power structures
the only reason he makes ridiculous claims about orthodox archaeology is because he can get away with it if he tried the same with the government hed be in prison by now

othodox archaeologists don't have the time of day for hancock
every single one of them knows more about the field than he does and finds it very easy to see that hes just another pseudo crank making claims without any basis or grounding in reality
and every single archaeologist alive on this planet is dedicated to their profession and regards finding actual real evidence as more important than some fantasy that one man likes to perpetrate on the unknowing public because he prefers money to truth and because generally they don't know any better
the fact that some people want to defend him just proves they are ignorant of both the real truth about history and the real motivation bahind hancocks writing
he was supporting the bosnian pyramid up until very recently because it supported his age of leo crap
he has since decided to quietly pretend that he never did
that in itself shows how very honest he isnt

Marduk, as to your conclusion that unorthodox theorists are just in it "for the money" I can't s[eak for Hancock in particular, but I wrote several books on Atlantis and ancient cryptologies in the 1980s and while I can't claim total altruism, I personally ended up in the red for between one and two hundred thousand dollars. I did radio talk shows and had a talk show agent, a book promo agent, and more. Yet I don't begrudge the financial losses, feel it was enriching in other ways, and believe that most of us "alternative approaches" authors have not just been in it for the money.

you know i was speaking of Hancock in particular
i know him quite well and he doesnt do it for altruism at all
as you admit that you didn't do it for Altruism the only reason that you have a point is because your book failed
had it been a success and made you a million dollars you wouldn't have admitted being non altruistic would you
so should i ask you when you wrote it
did you think it would be a success
or did you think it would flop ?

had you known it would be a flop and end up with you in debt would you have bothered to write it ?

How do you get in debt from writing a book anyway
didn't you get a publisher ?


[edit on 24-8-2006 by Marduk]

I enjoy reading Graham Hancock's books. I have quite a few, actually, and while I may not be too enthused by his theories, they are first of all, fun to read, secondly, led me to other authors (whom he may or may not have quoted correctly) and thirdly... because there are so many other people who have read his books, good conversations inevitably get started over them.

I read Supernatural just recently and would never have found David Lewis-Williams amazing book 'The Mind in the Cave' had it not been for Hancock.

Graham Hancock two thumbs up

Whatsamatta Marduk, getting nervous?

Harte

Shinn was not asked to do any Archaeology. He was asked to take a look at the orientations of the layers in the beachrock found just off Bimini's western shoreline in an attempt to find out whether the stone's orientations had changed relative to each other. Such a change might indicate that the beachrock had been shaped and then placed in the current location as some sort of structure. See, the orientation of the layers in the beachrock would certainly not have been maintained by any workers using them for construction purposes.

Shinn's report found no such variations in the orientations of the layers in the rocks he took borings from. Be they side by side or separated by several meters.

Observing layering in beachrock through borings taken from the beachrock is a geological investigation and has no archaeological aspect whatsoever. Shinn has never claimed any archaeological qualification.



Totally absurd. Eugene Shinn was, at that time, in charge of the United States Geological Survey's Florida field office. The question absolutely is not whether he was qualified, the question is who in the hell could possibly be more qualified?


Please, why do you assume I didn't read that article?
What I saw there are a couple of short quotes from Shinn, and an accusation of something we are supposed to believe Shinn said during a private telephone conversation.



Actually, what he said was that he did this investigation on his own time because the USGS wouldn't give him the OK to do it. The fact is, he was looking forward to a free Bimini trip and the snorkling involved, as well as a little fishing and probably some island cocktails. Wouldn't you? As far as his "peers," you really are ignorant, aren't you? Shinn was talking about a thing known as "peer review." What he was saying was that, since he took the project on for fun, his results would not be published in any professuional publication and thus were not subject to peer review.

Shinn was asked (by an acquaintance that was an Atlantis believer, though not necessarily a Cayce believer) to look into this a long, long, long time before the subject was beaten to death by A.R.E. After his first report, A.R.E. wouldn't even agree that the stones were beachrock. You'll note that today they've been forced to so concede. And I do mean forced.



No "ancient harbors" anywhere are "virtually identical" to the natural formation found off Bimini's western shore. And why would a geologist need to know anything about archaeological relics or ruins?

Regarding what you refer to as his "first posting," the only contradictions are claimed contradictions, such claims that are made by A.R.E. on that joke website you keep linking to (was Bimini even discussed in this old Hancock thread?)

Please provide a link to Shinn's 1978 article and show us these contradictions. From what I recall, Shinn said one thing originally, then when asked about it thirty five years later, said something only somewhat different.

The article you linked is merely the response of the A.R.E. to a short article written by Shinn and published by the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal in their magazine Skeptical Inquirer. The article by Shinn can be read here


Why do you think this was a contradiction? Shinn used no carbon dating in his original finding that the beachrock was a natural formation. It's true what he says about what you are calling "natural occuring carbon particles" (actually, it's shells of living, or previously living animals that contaminate such formations.)

Current estimates for the age of the beachrock based on C14 indicate that the beachrock was formed at a time when the ocean covered the area where it lays. That fits neither Shinn's findings nor Cayce's "vision." Obviously, beachrock, which is what this stuff is, forms on beaches, not under the ocean. Shinn knows this just as well as A.R.E. does. So the C14 dating is a wash for both parties. It means nothing to either, in other words.


Before you continue showing yourself to be A.R.E.'s lapdog, you might want to consider the uncomfortable fact that Shinn is not the only Geologist to have investigated this natural formation. Once you find out more, I suggest you ask yourself this. Why is it that these other geologists aren't mentioned in the long and colorful article you keep linking to? Could it be that, since their investigations are more recent and they aren't in their seventies, if these people were "interviewed" they might not be so easy to trip up into some so-called "contradiction" as the aged Shinn, thirty five years removed from his investigation, was?

Anyway, talking about ego and it's propensity for forcing the shallow to "stick by (their) rusty guns," you have your parties reversed.

What has happened is that California has not slid off into the Pacific and China has not become a Christian Nation, both of which were predicted by "the great" Edgar Cayce, founder of A.R.E. If Bimini as part of Atlantis (which never even existed anyway but let's not go there) doesn't come through for Cayce and the Cayceites, well, it's like Cayce at the Bat.

"The outlook isn't brilliant..." to paraphrase

Three strikes and your out.

Harte

i thought i was being polite
i could have said "what happened you get sued for fraud"
as we both know Harte its not possible to get into debt on a project unless you put your own money behind it
seeing as publishers put their money behind publishing books the only person who can possible incur a debt from publishing a pile of crap is the publisher itself
thats why its hard to find a publisher unless you have excellent material, quotes from recognised individuals about your work and support from both academics and popular authors alike
i have all 4
what me worry
naaah

Answering Marduk's question above: I got into the red promoting my book because my publisher (Exposition Press) went out of business only a few weeks after my book was published in 1984, and the only way the book could get any promo was if I tried to do it by myself.

self publishing was prohibitively expensive back then wasn't it
do you still have any copies as i'd like to read it
i'd actually pay you for one so you could recoup some of your investment
couldn't you find another publisher ?

Okay Harte,

Then explain the severe differences in the three articles published by Shinn on this subject. That's all I was really asking when it comes down to it. Agreed, he wasn't asked to do an archeological dig. He was simply tasked with trying to figure out if it was naturally occuring or not.

I guess the big question then is can anyone produce all three of his articles. Because if it can be shown that there are such varying numbers given as this article claims then it makes your whole nasty retort moot.

Why? Because the numbers given in the first article will be a more accurate account of what he truly found. That's from a scientific stance. Memory is not going to get better with age (as he has shown) so the data given that close to his actual trip will be more truthful.

I may be "ignorant" as you quickly enjoy pointing out but at least I am questioning something that just doesn't make sense (attacking is the first response of someone who feels threatened, are you feeling threatened?) Now this geologist is trying to come back and say that it appears that not all beachrock slants towards deep water. Granted, we are learning new things every day but it just seems aweful convenient that this statement will come out after the two revisions of his initial article have been challenged.

Also, it wasn't a phone interview. It was via email so Dr. Shinn had plenty of opportunity to "think things through" for his responses. The author of the article would be pushing his luck if he changed up the responses. If that is the case then I hope for it to be challenged as well.

I am simply looking for the truth, not for conflict.

As for the "virtually identical" I admit that I rushed through this and did not form the sentence the way I wanted. That's the problem with the written forum. Someone comes along and asks a question and you skip a beat. I meant to simply state that there were pieces found that were virtually identical. Now, since you have already stated that you feel they were "planted" I guess this is just another moot point.

So I agree, let's find this article. If indeed he shows that he stated even "most" of the beachrock was slanted towards deep water then the subject should be closed. However, if indeed his findings only show that he noted less than 30% were slanted then it does indeed show something more because his last article clearly stated that 100% of the stones slanted towards deep water. He left no room for error. 100%.

As a student of learning I would truly enjoy seeing the findings of any other geologist whatsoever on Bimini. It's about learning the truth my friend, not supporting one person's vision or another.

Also, I'm trying to figure out where I mentioned Atlantis in any of this. If I did then I am off my rocker because not once, if I recall, did I mention that this was indeed a part of Atlantis. Then again, who knows how vast a realm like Atlantis could have or would have been? Since you do not believe (or maybe I'm jumping to conclusions again) that it existed I will probably be running into more resistence by the slight mention of the culture.

Now for a quick education on your last statement. Make sure you are separating the son from the father. Edgar Cayce (the father) never once gave any readings on California sliding into the ocean nor did "he" predict anything dealing with China and their religion. Sorry, but your research in this area needs to be done a little more thoroughly. Once you realize that Edgar Cayce gave readings to questions he received instead of "prophecy" like many try to state then you will realize that it was his son that tried to take things to the next level in multiple books. He pressed the Atlantis issue and made bold statements that many mistakingly place at his father's feet. Oh yeah, they are both named Edgar Cayce so make sure you are looking at the right one.

Maybe strike two but I can still hit.

you don't think that Cayce got his knowledge of esoteric matters from books then which would explain why they were so similar to the work of Ignatius Donnelly, Helena Blavatsky, Gerald Massey, Rudolf Steiner and Piazzi Smythe
I hear that he was paid for his readings as well
is that true or not ?

Why would he not be paid for readings? Would a doctor quickly go under if not paid in some form for the work he/she does? The same goes for anyone in any career. If their work helps people then they cannot give it away for free or soon enough they'll not be able to help anymore.

As for his work being similar to the others you mention, well, if that be the case then it is a pretty solid accomplishment for one with an 8th grade education to read the works of all of these people and even better, understand them enough to make such readings.

Is it possible? Sure. Anything is possible if one puts their mind to it. Is it likely, well, that's up for some serious discussion.

Then you bring in the religious upbringing and we get another variable thrown in the mix that completely conflicts with many of his readings.

Obviously we can go on and on. I just want to attack this one topic first. Not attack a person that is long dead.

Let's focus on finding the articles first and then we can finish this one up first.

Thanks,

Mike

www.bahamapundit.com...


what did Cayce sell ?

He was a salesman for a wholesale stationary company. Nothing more. Nothing less. This is during the time of his life when he was struck with aphonia (the throat problem that prevented him from speaking.) Just so you don't get the idea that he was a great used car salesman type. hehe

Anyway, back on to the subject. I have requested from the University of Miami to get a copy of the 1978 article by Shinn. There does seem to be some serious discrepencies between even the 1980 article and his latest one so I would like to see what is changed in this one. Granted, he is an older gentleman and was well into his 60's when asked about his information. However, to make a statement that 100% of something occured when initially he noted that less than 30% were so would be something that cannot be attributed to age. Just wanted to get your sense on that.

Also, in my searches, I came across another interesting article mentioning many of the other geologists that explored the road (I don't like calling it a road because it obviously was not a road.) This make a pretty solid argument for it being a natural occurance. Especially when he lists many other locations throughout the world that display similar rectangular beachstone formations.

Like I stated before. I just like finding the truth. I do not blindly go in and swallow everything whole. That is why I posted here in the first place. If Shinn was shown to be contradicting himself then it makes sense that he was fudging the data. However, the questions and replies in this page gives some pretty solid evidence to the contrary of it being manmade.

www.intersurf.com...

Mike

was this before or after he worked in a series of bookshops
i just like finding the truth too

i love the way that Greg Little is refuting a qualified geologists report on a geological feature as well and the only person you think to Question is Shin
Dr. Gregory Little holds a master's degree in psychology and a doctorate in counseling from Memphis State University
i bet that comes in handy when he's studying beachrock


[edit on 29-8-2006 by Marduk]

Yes, he worked misc. jobs on farms, in bookstores, etc. because he finished school in his 7th grade year. So is he a genius for working in a bookstore? Does this make him a scholar now? When he spoke in public with people he was a mild natured man that many would have considered "uneducated" simply from the way he spoke. So, by working in a bookstore are we saying he is now able to speak in the sentences that he did? Of the things he did?

Maybe I should have left school after the 7th grade if that is what you are implying by the statement.

Again, are we attacking a long dead man or are we talking about some formations in the ocean off of the shores of Bimini?

As for Dr. Little, I'm still a bit confused about what point he was really trying to make. He seemed to attack both "true believers" and Dr. Shinn.

If we want to talk about improbables, it's the idea that the Chinese built a harbor there when the water levels for that part of the ocean were not low enough during the time period they are talking about. Two decades before Columbus? The shoreline was probably halfway between the Bimini formation and the current shore.

Anyway, just want to try and get things back on topic instead of attacking someone that cannot defend themself. I don't know about you but in my culture I believe it to be extremely rude to attack the dead.

Cayce didn't have an odd job at a bookstore
it was his profession for 15 years from 1893 to 1908 at exactly the same time that the works of Ignatius Donnelly, Helena Blavatsky, Gerald Massey,Rudolf Steiner and Piazzi Smythe were widely available (theospophist movement) en.wikipedia.org...
Blavatskys lifes work "the secret doctrine of Isis" was published the same year that Cayce began his foray into the exciting world of somnabulistic plaguiarism


it hardly matters as your arguments are in the main erroneous anyway. demanding to compare three statements made by a geologist three decades apart and crowing when you find they aren't word for word hardly qualifies you as debater of the year does it
your earlier complaint that Cayce should be paid for his medical advice is in fact illegal, practicing medicine without a license is against the law and Cayce was quite rightfully convicted of the crime having been arrested in detroit following complaints form his patients in 1935


greg little is a member of the A.R.E. do you happen to know what position he currently holds there. If you don't you should find out because otherwise you'd look pretty dumb when i tell you. the fact that Cayce was a convicted criminal also seems to have eluded your argument. he was also arrested in charges of fortune telling in New York in 1931 but the case was dismissed when he left town


don't be so naive
the fact that Cayce is dead is neither here nor there
in this particular case you will find that either Shin is wrong or Cayce is. Greg Little is nothing more than Cayces current mouthpiece
so his current ability to breathe status is as irrelevant as Greg Littles geology qualifications which if you'd checked you would find are actually non existent
Dr. Gregory Little holds a master's degree in psychology and a doctorate in counseling from Memphis State University. you may not have debated with Little over this but I have and the first thing he suggests to detractors is that they are suffering delusions

and to save you the trouble in 2003 Greg and his wife Lora, took over the ARE’s long running Search for Atlantis project, which focuses on the Bahamas area.

so it really does come down in the end to his motivation
Clearly he is only involved because he believes Bimini to be part of the fabled lost city
clearly therefore he is bonkers
I'm allowed to say that right
he is after all still alive
at the 2000 A.R.E. conference he detailed the journey taken by Iltar's group of survivors from Atlantis
www.edgarcayce.org...
Iltar in case you hadn't heard the name before is regarded by Cayce devotees as a high priest of Atlantis who went west after the destruction and built a hall of records somewhere in the Yukutan (Reading 5750-1)
the fact that Greg Little believes this sort of crap and doesn't believe a genuine geologists report when the geologist himself has no agenda apart from the truth should give you some idea of just how credible this baloney really is

Marduk,

Thanks for that, man. I haven't been here for three days and I missed all this.

Excellent post.

I think that a Hancock thread is hardly the place to talk about little, Cayce and Shinn though.

Only a few things left to add.

Little's PDF about this has enough holes in it that it can be used to seine for amberjack off the shores of Bimini.

For one he tells of a Dr. Zink, a "researcher" slash English professor that was funded by A.R.E., relating a story where a psychic reading resulted in the information that Pleiadean visitors constructed the site:



So according to Little, Zink was not a member of A.R.E. I find that to be extremely unlikely.

Additionally, Little picks nits when he says the following:


See, Cayce never said what Shinn claims he said. That's true. But Cayce did say basically what Shinn claimed.



Source Or any number of other sources.

BTW, Cayce shouldn't be let off so easy as to blame his innaccuracies on his son:


Source

This quote doesn't even ionclude the Christian nation that is supposedly today's China, though I assure you that it comes from Cayce, and not his son.

Also rest assured that it was A.R.E. that "discovered" the Bimini formation, and that they did so by going out and searching in the year that Cayce predicted it would "rise." So askk yourselves this, why didn't they look for it in 1965?

Harte

As interesting this all is, I have to agree with Harte on this to a degree...



...although the flow of the debate did gravitate gently to Cayce et al.

Because of the manner in which these individuals became part of the conversation, I believe a bit of latitude is called for when talking about Hancock and his rich imagination (for comparison's sake).

As long as it doesn't deviate too far afield.

Great thread so far...

I agree that Hancock is a great 'writer'. It's imagination and it sells.

As for Dr. Little, I can't argue against you on his part in his endeavor. However, what many people seem to miss is that Atlantis is not a simple city. It was a massive country that spanned much of the Atlantic basin.

It is all speculation anyway.

I can sit here and write and imaginative sci-fi posting on how Atlantis was destroyed in three separate disasters as Cayce stated or how there was already a polar shift that caused the landmasses to shift dramatically thus causing a huge rift in a continent that is now well below the surface of an ocean. How the ports of this great country touched ALL parts of the world before there was strife between the races and on and on.

Do I believe that Bimini is part of "Atlantis"? No. If I ever stated that then it was something that I did not intend. If that was an assumption made on your part then I ammend that thought now so that you know it was not the case.

Do I think that the Bimini formation could possibly be, even with all of the reports given by genuine geologists, a man made structure? You know what? Until I ever get out there with my own eyes and then have a clue as to what I am looking at I will probably never know. You will always get two sides of the story.

As for Cayce. Here is my view on him. I do not see how it can be right to attack someone so viciously when much of his messages were about spirituality and loving all as you would yourself.

Seeing that I am getting a "scientific" feel from you and a few of the others on this thread I tend to think that maybe you consider that view on life as "nutty"? Forgive me if I have crossed any lines here. I am, as I have stated, simply after the truth. I look at what others point me to and then I look at what you guys point me to. I then research online what I can and compare everything. That is the best that I can do.

But do I get aggressive and abbrassive towards you and others? Do I call you ignorant or throw slanders about? Nope. That's up to you to figure out for yourself whether or not it is the best approach.

Also, for the "quote" that Cayce made about the changes happening from 1958 to 1998. If you read it correctly and from the actual recorded documents that he had made you will see that this statement is more correctly made that these changes will 'begin' during this timeframe. Nothing ever said that "By such and such date these things will have come to pass." It was simply stated that changes will start to occur that will bring this on. When you look at the state of the environment and the damage that is being brought on by our 'technology' you might be able to see how this can be the case.

Anyway, I enjoy ALL of the posts on here. Even the ones that feel they need to attack a particular poster or someone that is long dead. Dr. Little is around to defend himself so anything he brings on his own head is up to him to deflect. I just think that your logic in attacking Cayce on the basis that you have given is simply biased and wrong. He is not here to defend himself. Dr. Little is. Attack him if you feel you must.

Just my thoughts on the subject. Maybe one day we will all know the real truth of all matters.

I look forward to your reply and all of your future posts.

Mike