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.

 

Thoughts on Graham Hancock??

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 09:08 AM
link   
thankyou marduk,i knew you would bring up the giants causeway,i think thats man made thoughthe other picture shows erosion thats obviously done by nature...i'm not just talking about hancock though,others have wrote about these structures and have very different theories to his...




posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 09:13 AM
link   
lol,lol.i promise you i havn't.what i mean by disappeared is not that they vanished into thin air,or up into space.but just that our knowledge of them was forgotten,lost and only when the ruins of their homes etc was discovered did we refind these civilizations



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 09:48 AM
link   
so what youre saying is
that the very second we started doing archaeology as a species we found cultures that we had forgotten about 2000 years earlier
you think this is surprising
did you hear about the dark ages or did that pass your culture by

we didn't find all of the civilisations you mentioned through archaeology
they were all found mentioned in the texts of other cultures we managed to translate before we dug them up
in many cases the textual evidence led to digging in the right areas

The first archaeological evidence for the Hittites appeared in tablets found at an Assyrian colony.

the Cahokia culture wasn't a forgotten mystery either
we didn't get til america until relatively recently and when we did the people who built the mounds were still living there
so in that case its not that we forgot but that we didn't know about them in the first place

Catal Hoyuk wasn't a civilisation
it was just a town
unfortunately nobody in 8000bce was going around making maps otherwise we might have discovered it before 1958

none of these examples indicate that we suffer from amnesia
in fact they are all good examples that we know more about the past right now than any culture which previously existed

the only people who don't know about these cultures tend to be those who don't want to know
mainly these sort of people buy books by pseudohistorians like Hancock
they prefer fiction to fact
or they don't believe in them because they believe in creationist claptrap and think the world is not old enough for these discoveries to be true
they don't like the reality so they subsitute their own
and then they claim its real
real for them maybe
but not really real to reality


[edit on 28-2-2007 by Marduk]



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 10:50 AM
link   
now lets not get silly,thats not what i'm saying
history is forgotten,especially if it's not continually taught to ppl.

the hittites,for example,are mentioned in egyption history;the battle of kadesh.there is a vague reference to them in the bible,then nothing until the 20th century.it was from discoveries during the 1870's that the world of the hittites would eventually be revealed,and only over several decades.

see website-www.asor.org



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 11:54 AM
link   


the hittites,for example,are mentioned in egyption history;the battle of kadesh.there is a vague reference to them in the bible,then nothing until the 20th century.it was from discoveries during the 1870's that the world of the hittites would eventually be revealed,and only over several decades

yes but we couldn't read what the egyptians said until the 1850s
the vague reference to them in the bible didn't lead to them being discovered, as the bible is a historically based work of fiction
if it were the case then people with faith would have been on expeditions looking for sodom and gomorroh and other fictional places mentioned in it

no wait
there were people who went on expeditions looking for those places
they just didn't find them


a lot of the scientific work which led to the discovery of these cultures came about as a result of relatively modern techniques
especially in linguistics
Cuneiform wasn't deciphered until the end of the 19th century
when that happened the past in the middle east became an open book to us
it also revealed the original source for the later stories that appear in the old testatment
Biblical archaeology died a death when that happened
well for science anyway
there are still a few people who adhere to outdated middle eastern cults but they never make any progress

I don't understand why you place a lot of importance on the discovery of the Hittites
they didn't exist until the 18th century bce
by that point there had been civilisation in mesopotamia for 3200 years
and we didn't know about that either



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   
i think its coz i've recently been researching the hittites,lol.
but its important to remember that their history was forgotten also by the other cultures of that area....



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jakyll
thankyou marduk,i knew you would bring up the giants causeway,i think thats man made

errrr



posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 05:17 PM
link   
i did put a wink in after that comment but it didn't come up



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by DragonsDemesne
I have read Hancock's book "Talisman". (that's the only one of his I have) He cowrote that one with Robert Bauval. The book had some absolutely fascinating information in it, but the conclusions that the authors drew from that information just didn't sit right with me. Don't get me wrong, they did a lot of research, and the stuff that I checked elsewhere shows that of the ones I checked, they got their facts right. I just found it really hard to believe in the 'connections' that the authors put forward between gnosticism, cathars, masons, the US founding fathers, and all that. Some of their connections I could believe; for example, it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to imagine that gnosticism and catharism could be connected, but I'm pretty darned convinced that ancient Egyptian religion had nothing to do with the layout of the city plan for Paris or Washington, D.C.


I have to disagree regarding egyptian religion influencing Washington DC....ill just make a few points...number one, what in the world does a pyramid and the eye of Ra have to do with the United States?..Why in the world is that then featured in US Currency??? Also the alignment (north i think, dont quote me I saw this part in another documentary) not to mention the shape of the pentagon. I dont think its so simple as Egyptian being the theme though...look at London, Dragon and serpent symbology everywhere, almost all major centers of world power have some sort of esoteric influence on the architecture. And for the starter of this thread...I highly recommend Graham Hancock and his books....especially Fingerprints of the Gods and recently Supernatural



posted on Mar, 3 2007 @ 08:50 PM
link   

Hancock is a scam artist out to make a buck. He knowingly repeats false information about archaeological discoveries (such as Von Daniken's interpretation of the carving in the Tomb of Pacal) to prop up his book-selling yet preposterous ideas about human history.

His books are not worth the paper they're printed on. If you just can't help yourself, then borrow his books from a library, or buy them at some used bookstore, so that you aren't lining a con man's pockets. And keep an eye on your wallet.


Im going to have to disagree once again. Archaeology and much of science itself is generally governed by a few so called "experts" and the people who give them grant money. Once a "fact" is established and those with vested interested (reputation and money spent) will absolutely refuse to acknowledge that anything other than what they say is true can possible be. They will ignore, refute, and deny any new evidence to the contrary, and on top of that ridicule, blackball and insult anyone who suggests anything contradictory. Even in the face of genuine evidence, there have been so many occasions thoughout history and on through modern times that it takes decades or even longer for new ideas to be even debated then finally accepted even if its obvious that the new ideas are correct. People have been fired, and silenced to preserve the establishments claim over what is "FACT". As far as Graham Hancock goes, I know some of his ideas are unorthodox but in general I find that commonly accepted truths are often based on evidence that is just as circumstantial or flimsy as other ideas...the only difference being that somebody at an earlier date decided that the matter was already settled and they simply couldnt be wrong. For instance in his new book, Grahams ideas regarding the sudden jump in evolution about 40,000 years ago as a result of mankinds discovering of plants with psychotropic properties at first seems sorta far fetched...until you look at the modern research done with '___' (found in the Ayahuasca brew) and its relationship with spirituality, death, dreams and healing. The shamans that have been cultivating and using these plants to the benefit of their people have thousands of years of experience and wisdom regarding such matters and in those cultures the people are so much more enlightened with their spirituality. There is almost no drug addiction, very little violent crimes, stress or psychological illnesses that plague our "modern" culture where we have been so far removed from seeking self-journeys in the name of the "war on drugs" that we have de-evolved and gone away from enlightment or some say god. Ayahuasca is actually used with an incredible success rate to CURE people of addiction to hard drugs (here in vancouver, policy makers are pushing for ayahuasca clinics for heroin, crack and meth addicts) yet they are as illegal as any hard drug in the US (Vancouver its not illegal =)). I started reading Supernatural thinking only about human evolution wayy back when and in turn, the ideas and knowledge in the book turned me onto a vast new area of interest and knowledge.



posted on Mar, 4 2007 @ 11:54 PM
link   
All the more power to him... a great huckster and con man.

He has made a lot of money preying on the naive and gullible. A fool and his money are soon parted, and Hancock is certainly getting his share.



posted on Mar, 22 2007 @ 10:12 AM
link   
Hay Jakyll what the frell are you talking about "the mayans disappeared" I'm still here and so is most of my family. Lets not forget Guatamala, Belize, Honduras I think you may find a few Maya still living there. I think if you look really hard you may find a few yourself. If you go to Belize City we are not the white ones.



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 12:20 PM
link   
I admire and respect Graham Hancock. I have read the numerous comments in this thread that present him almost as an imbicile, and I totally disagree.
He is a brilliant mind, there are not many people that are capable or willing to truly think outside the box but he does. In all honesty research is always just a collection of data. There is never really any proof in anything, it is all a matter of perspective. There have been countless time in history where some scholar or scientist has stated something to be fact based on some "evidence" which is later found to be wrong because of the way perceived it at the time was incorrect. In truth all that we know of history can only ever be theory based on perception. Without physically being there, there is no real way of knowing if our idea on what something is evidence of is factual or not. In the end you are always taking SOMEONE's opinion as fact whether you choose to believe or realize it or not. Proof is an illusion. With that in mind. There may never be any theory that becomes fact, however I like the fact that his theories challenge what those that are in control want you to believe. Sometimes the right knowledge can be quite powerful and liberating. What I like about him is that he compells the reader to consider things that others try to suppress thus allowing a person to free their mind a bit and think more for themselves and less for what others would have us think.

Some people will get what I am saying here. Others won't. and thats ok.
Im not here to argue.. just giving my personal opinion of an original thinker.



posted on Mar, 25 2007 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by NephraTari
I admire and respect Graham Hancock. I have read the numerous comments in this thread that present him almost as an imbicile, and I totally disagree.

no one has said he is an imbecile
he is an author who writes historical based fiction
nothing more

He is a brilliant mind, there are not many people that are capable or willing to truly think outside the box but he does.

you seem to be missing the point. he has not thought outside any box at all. all of his ideas have been solidly debunked
most of them were born from a total lack of understanding of the cultures that he professes to be knowledgable about
and the rest were just made up to fool gullible people into thinking je actually knows soemthing
he doesnt

In all honesty research is always just a collection of data. There is never really any proof in anything, it is all a matter of perspective.

if that were the case we would still be living in caves.
Science is testable
speculation is not
the reason none of Hancocks theories have been proven is because they were never scientifically based. he ignores tons of scientific data to put forward his theories in most cases pretending that the data that disproves what hes saying doesnt exist
it does
Hancocks books are loved by entry level people who don't know any better
if you did you'd laugh at them




There have been countless time in history where some scholar or scientist has stated something to be fact based on some "evidence" which is later found to be wrong because of the way perceived it at the time was incorrect.

are you talking about science now or history
you are overgeneralising and its making what you say irrelevant



In truth all that we know of history can only ever be theory based on perception.

its based on empirical data and observable results like any science

Without physically being there, there is no real way of knowing if our idea on what something is evidence of is factual or not.

these civilisations left behind descriptions of their life in their own words
Hancock doesn't read them and prefers to quite out of context or ignore texts completely because they contradict his point of view


In the end you are always taking SOMEONE's opinion as fact whether you choose to believe or realize it or not. Proof is an illusion. With that in mind. There may never be any theory that becomes fact,

History books are not written with a "believe me" agenda in mind. they are written to educate.
Hancocks books are written to make him rich
see the difference there ?


however I like the fact that his theories challenge what those that are in control want you to believe. Sometimes the right knowledge can be quite powerful and liberating. What I like about him is that he compells the reader to consider things that others try to suppress thus allowing a person to free their mind a bit and think more for themselves and less for what others would have us think.

Hancocks work has never challenged any orthodox belief system.
he isn't considered relevant as he is a pseudohistorian. the fact that he pretends he is showing you things that orthodox historians don't want you to know is in fact a ploy on his part
without you beleieving that he is telling you hidden secrets the actual facts of the matter speak for themselves.
Take Tiahuanaco for instance. He claims it is far older than you have been led to believe. he champions an idea set forth by an employee of the thrid reich who were well known for inventing their own history for the purposes of self agandisement and completely ignores that there have been hundreds of radio carbon dates taken at the site that agree with the orthodox dating. Not one date comes back older than 2000bce.
Hancock claims more than 10,000 years
a claim without any evidence at all is not a claim. its a joke


Some people will get what I am saying here. Others won't. and thats ok.
Im not here to argue.. just giving my personal opinion of an original thinker.

I would suggest that you wake up and smell the coffee
Hancock is not an original thinker
he is a self confessed anarchist who despises hierarchies and power structures
he is also a trained journalist who knows what secrets will excite the public to the point that they don't think to ask "hey is this true"
well it isn't true
and Hancock is ripping off your intellectualism
the reason he is able to do that is
you are letting him



posted on Mar, 31 2007 @ 08:45 PM
link   
I swear to God, every time Hancock's name pops out, you are ready to kill it


Just be a good boy and tell me, what did he do 2 u?

p.s. Pulliizzz don't tell me you care about the truth and the science. None of those is done in bulletin boards



posted on Apr, 1 2007 @ 06:56 AM
link   
he didn't do anything to me
he writes crap that is easily proven false and I have got sick and tired of debating with people who claim that because he wrote something it must be true because "what motivation would he have to lie"

some people are so naive



posted on Apr, 1 2010 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Graham Hancock is going to town tonight on coasttocoastam.com...

Anyone listening?

I met Hancock at the INFO Fortfest back in 1998 -- he was still lecturing on Fingerprints of the Gods.

His big schtick at that time was how a comet was going to destroy life on Earth and how only a nuclear missile would save Earth -- by destroying the comet.

I commented to Hancock that doesn't the effect of nuclear technology equal the effect of a comet? Isn't the method of the solution just as bad as the problem?

He didn't have an answer -- only we didn't have another choice.

But I think we do -- and now Hancock is fixated on the spiritual and the paranormal -- which is what I was focused on -- NOT on using nuclear missiles to save humanity.

haha. Big change Hancock and nice to see! His last two books are focused on the spiritual and the paranormal --




top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join