It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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
Originally posted by jakyll
thankyou marduk,i knew you would bring up the giants causeway,i think thats man made
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.
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.
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.