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: 4
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 31 2006 @ 09:27 PM
link   


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.

Cayce claimed it was in the Atlantic
Plato didn't



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.

Polar shifts have been disproved by science
Cayce was a convicted criminal
the Ocean that Cayce claims was the location of Atlantis has been extensively mapped and it isn't there



You will always get two sides of the story.

In this case one side was made by a man who was asleep by his own admission and the other side was by a highly trained Geologist who knew what he was looking at



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.

you have been listening to the A.R.E. who's illustration of Cayce as a prophet is part of a multi million dollar business. He was not a prophet. he was a plaguiarist



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.

you have not been listening. you cannot lay crank pseudo theories alongside known scientific fact
they do not stand up to the slightest of scrutiny



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."

Cayce predicted that 1933 would be a good year. it was in fact the start of the great depression
Cayce predicted that China would be converted to Christianity by 1968.
it wasn't
Cayce predicted that in 1958 the U.S. would discover some sort of death ray used on Atlantis
they didn't
the list of predictions that Cayce got wrong are endless
the list of miracle cures he prescribed for people is legendary in their uselessness. such things as the bloody skin of a dead rabbit for breast cancer.
Some of his other recommendations were "'oil of smoke' for a leg sore; 'peach-tree poultice' for convulsions; 'bedbug juice' for dropsy; and 'fumes of apple brandy from a charred keg' for tuberculosis"
In some cases he was so slow in responding to requests for medical advice that some of the people he was diagnosing had actually died




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


tell me, when Saddam Hussein is executed will you also be saying that he was a good man with the best wishes of his country at heart
or will you wake up and realise that like Cayce he was self centred and only interested in what he personally could make on the deal

once again
Cayce was a convicted criminal, the fact that he has an organisation that defends his fictitious good name should be enough for you to let people have their opinions
especially when they are better informed about his truth than you appear to be

as for this statement


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

Baloney. Hancock claims its the truth. it isn't


[edit on 31-8-2006 by Marduk]




posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 04:15 PM
link   
Well, here you go. I found the article from the first magazine written by Shinn. What did I find? Exactly what he said in the other two articles and NOTHING about a certain percentage of blocks tilting anywhere other than towards the sea. He did mention that the majority were laying flat on the ground but explained that all of the patterns lined up block to block. That right there is enough to convince me that the "Bimini Road" or "Harbor" is actually exactly what Marduk and Shinn have claimed it to be. I do not see an option for attaching anything here so you will have to take my word for it. The article in discussion in favor of it being manmade has taken the facts so far away from what was stated that I am convinced absolutely that he manipulated the results himself to try and show that it was still a manmade harbor.

Well, I am only after the truth and after doing the research as thoroughly as I can I have to change my view on this. It is now on the believers to bring SOLID evidence like what was presented in ALL of Shinn's articles to the table in order to change this mind.

Thought I would share and hopefully close this topic down until more solid evidence can be brought forth.

Mike



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   
so is it ok to badmouth Cayce and his supporters now ?



posted on Sep, 7 2006 @ 11:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by Marduk
so is it ok to badmouth Cayce and his supporters now ?


Umm, to be quite honest with you, it still is NEVER good to bad mouth anyone. Especially one that is passed. However, you can call this guy a liar for blatantly trying to misrepresent data in order to create a fantasy.

So how about we leave it at that?



posted on Sep, 8 2006 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by whylistentome
Well, here you go. I found the article from the first magazine written by Shinn. What did I find? Exactly what he said in the other two articles and NOTHING about a certain percentage of blocks tilting anywhere other than towards the sea. He did mention that the majority were laying flat on the ground but explained that all of the patterns lined up block to block. That right there is enough to convince me that the "Bimini Road" or "Harbor" is actually exactly what Marduk and Shinn have claimed it to be. I do not see an option for attaching anything here so you will have to take my word for it. The article in discussion in favor of it being manmade has taken the facts so far away from what was stated that I am convinced absolutely that he manipulated the results himself to try and show that it was still a manmade harbor.

Well, I am only after the truth and after doing the research as thoroughly as I can I have to change my view on this. It is now on the believers to bring SOLID evidence like what was presented in ALL of Shinn's articles to the table in order to change this mind.

Thought I would share and hopefully close this topic down until more solid evidence can be brought forth.

Mike


Whylistentome,

Why listen to you? That's why.


And, oh yeah, also - thanks for using the word "evidence." Everybody wants to use the word "proof" in such statements. It constitutes misuse of the word and even the complete misunderstanding of the very concept of "proof" to use it in such statements.


Pet peeve of mine.

Harte



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 10:30 AM
link   
Thank you Harte.

I am simply looking for a place to evaluate data in order to gain the truth of the matter.

I'm not here to push false information. The author of the page I read presented data and made claims that were solid IF what he stated were true.

It wasn't thus he is a liar and I discard his claims. I have found nothing else to support the idea that they are man made thus, as far as I can see, they are not.

I, as always, keep looking forward to the cross talk on this site.

We're all here searching for the truth and this is why I am willing to go to the extreme of actually obtaining copies of stuff such as this article to find it.


My sincerest blessings.

Mike



posted on Sep, 9 2006 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by whylistentome
Thank you Harte.

I am simply looking for a place to evaluate data in order to gain the truth of the matter.

I'm not here to push false information. The author of the page I read presented data and made claims that were solid IF what he stated were true.

It wasn't thus he is a liar and I discard his claims. I have found nothing else to support the idea that they are man made thus, as far as I can see, they are not.


You're quite welcome. It's unfortunate, this preponderance of prevaricating wallet predators on the internet and in bookstores.

I've posted here and elsewhere my opinion of how and why this sort of thing damages the very field these "researchers" claim to be interested in.


Originally posted by whylistentomeWell, I am only after the truth and after doing the research as thoroughly as I can I have to change my view on this. It is now on the believers to bring SOLID evidence like what was presented in ALL of Shinn's articles to the table in order to change this mind.


I had to say something about this statement, though.

Mike, it is always on the believers to provide such evidence. It was before, is now, and ever shall be. The fact that you uncovered a small iota of actual truth has no bearing whatsoever on the requirement that the Greg Littles of the world provide real and actual evidence to support their claims. After all, we ask no less from other researchers, true? The people that refute Little, IOW, have evidence that supports their claims. They must present such, or they are as unbelievable as he.

Harte

[edit on 9/9/2006 by Harte]



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 01:31 AM
link   
reply to post by madnessinmysoul
 


"good call harte / this man is essentially an intellectual fraudster / he puts together theories by starting at conclusions and then finding small pieces of evidence to support it."

Pardon me, but isn't that what science does as well? Posit a hypothesis and then find evidence to support it? So you're basically saying that science, too, is actually based on pure hokum?

You're probably right. I once read a well-known anthropologist talk about a new species based only a bone fragment he'd found in China. For all I know, he was speaking hokum because his "conclusions" -- like many scientific conclusions presented as incontrovertible fact before -- may well be replaced decades later by new evidence. Not that it matters to him: as a scientist he still insists on speaking about speculation as if it were fact and people should just believe him because, you know, he's a SCIENTIST who has been doing this for years.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 06:13 PM
link   
Yes but he was using all the known data.

Hancock cherry picks his data.



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 06:59 PM
link   
I personally enjoy reading Hancock and the like. Even though there was always question to the explanations, there always seemed to be some kind of "Possible" connection's to some of his finding's being plausible for consideration.
His referencing to biblical gnostic writing's were a bit far fetched, but that may be because I am atheist, but do think the bible could hold some clout for being the "Missing" histories of our planet. (Minus the actuality of there being an omnipotent creator or God.)
As for the Atlantis conjecture, I don't know if it was a fabricated Greek mythological story created by Plato, or if it was a true story of recollection from what he had heard during those times. Even as a so called myth as of right now, it allows people like us to venture down a road that has many fork's and turns for the food of thoughts that this could be an actuality rather than fictional. Kind of like UFOs or Aliens, No body has any definite, non-arguable fact's, only what is told by the recent sightings or witnesses and stories we have heard that carry on with us.

One thing that does get my attention over this thread is , "I thought that Hancock had spent five years researching in each of the aforementioned places in the book of 'Fingerprints of the God's', which is even stated in the introduction and the closing of the book?"

If I had to go one way or the other, I would stick to the beliefs of the poster that was quite adamant about "Flying Spaghetti Monsters", very funny indeed.

All-in-all, I enjoyed Hancock's writing's, they were meant to thirst the mind for better explanations that can't be proved or disproved for being a hoax or an out right dis-info. campaign.
IMO.......



posted on May, 28 2008 @ 11:23 PM
link   
Howdy Allred

Hancock writes well unfortunately he takes selected data and stretches it a bit too much. Such people have a use as they interest people in many subjects. Again unfortunately it takes some time to get them weened off the nonsense and into the science.

I love ancient civilizations and cultures - I find no need to dress them up with aliens and nonsense.

Flying Spaghetti Monsters - one of my favorites. I often slay a meat ball in its honor whenever possible.

I'm also a devotee of the church of bleeding foot and the ideas of the universal sloth.

Slack is all



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 12:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


yes, I agree.
"Those pesky meatballs anyway!!" LOL
But for the sake of the thread, I really do enjoy the reading's, but know when to reject the rather "Unrealistic" point's of someone elses views.
My point for the "Possibilities" explanation just allows me to give it a true beating of the brain before I actually throw it to the trash bin.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 12:50 PM
link   
Howdy Allred

One of the reason I haunt these halls is to look for non mainstream ideas and concepts. Which I pass on to folks I know in the world of academia, both for inclusion in "archaeology 101" classes and how to deal with woo but also interesting side issues. The last good idea I saw was awhile ago but it involved the analysis of the limited Sumerian bone material.

So now there is a grad student at a German University making a database of all surviving Sumerian bone material (a portion was lost in WWII) with the idea to have in involved in DNA testing, etc.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 01:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


I tired to find something on what you mentioned about the DNA testing and such, couldn't find anything really pin-pointing it for my own personal understanding of what you were talking/mentioned to me. Haven't heard of it, until you mentioned it.
I did, however find a paper that was released as a possible "Slur" against educational teaching's and what some of the aforementioned academia persons (Some anyway) feel towards some of whats being taught as a rule :


Science goes out the window when theories are
advocated by researchers that are not accepted by the
Academe. We like to believe that schooling broadens
our knowledge base and makes us wiser but this is not
the case.


Source;
www.egyptsearch.com...

Do you have an idea where I can find out more on what you have mentioned?



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Howdy Allred

You've found the point then. There isn't anything about Sumerian skeletal remains being tested (there is very little by the way due to the nature of the acidic soil in Mesopotamia).

I would suspect the sequence will be

Student completes database in about 6-9 months (has to plow thru 19th century records in German and French)

This is reviewed and perhaps a paper might come out of it, 6-12 months

Grants/budget will be sought to conduct the research and set up an online database. 1-4 years

That source you linked to was a bit odd some africocentric/race thingy, worth another thread perhaps.



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 


The justifications in the article I had posted was to finger the simplicities in the teaching's that we are taught as a whole, and that sometimes we are left with thinking outside of the proverbial box for explanations.
Though there does seem to be some pretty far-fetched conclusions for some too be able to accept or understand for the multitudes. Guess that's why we are all here, Because , just maybe, we aren't all there...



posted on May, 31 2008 @ 06:34 PM
link   
Most of the skeptical people here are interested in the subject and would LOVE to find evidence of aliens or advanced humans.

Unfortunately a great deal of time is spent going over the same tired debunked stuff over and over agaub instead of looking into more fruitful areas.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 07:52 AM
link   
All the people here bashing Hancock don't have a clue what the man is about. Though I don't personally know him I've met him 4 or 5 times at his various lectures when hes made his way to the north west states.

He states consistently that hes not trying to write a textbook to be strictly adhered to as a teaching plan nor is he trying to directly change the world with his books. Hes merely trying to encourage out the box thinking and debate about our own history.

As he says so many times in his books and in documentaries, historians and anthropologists are so set in their view of history that there is no longer room for new ideas or even slightly different takes on the same old ideas. His books are meant to inspire thoughts of "what if..." and "how do we really know that..", they're a talking point to jump off from.

As it stands theres so many holes in our developmental history and we just plunk things in haphazardly, trying to make a coherent series of events. If someone comes along like Hancock and plunks in another idea that fits the context, but is not consistent with the traditional model of human history or pre-history, the scientific community would never have that!

To me it seems foolish that we encourage our greatest minds to put all of our eggs into one basket like we're currently doing with ancient human history.

What if it turns out that we're wrong about various ancient cultures developing all over the world, simultaneously coming up with all the same styles of architecture, very similar beliefs, the same fascination with the sky, stars and monolithic monuments, but having never met one another.

To me that seems almost impossible, yet its the only acceptable theory today.

Heliocentric diffusionism gets wrongly lumped into creationist mythology and doesn't get a chance to prove itself by any respectable anthropologist as a valid theory for how all these separate but so extremely similar cultures came about.

Plus Hancock makes the subjects entertaining and engaging to the reader, I can't say the same about many traditionalist historians.



posted on Jun, 2 2008 @ 10:53 PM
link   


Heliocentric diffusionism gets wrongly lumped into creationist mythology and doesn't get a chance to prove itself by any respectable anthropologist as a valid theory for how all these separate but so extremely similar cultures came about.


I'm not sure what you are claiming here - can you explain in more detail please?



Plus Hancock makes the subjects entertaining and engaging to the reader, I can't say the same about many traditionalist historians.


Fiction always outsells non-fiction

Since you seem up on GH materials can you list the three top things he, in your opinion, he got right?



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 05:52 PM
link   
Graham Hancock in Pembrokeshire March 5th 2011

freemindseverywhere.com



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join