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.

 

Atlantis Reborn - Graham Hancock (fact or fiction?)

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 02:41 PM
link   
So I just watched 'Atlantis Reborn' which is a documentary on G. Hancock's theories on the pyramids, sphinx, and other ancient sites in asia and south america.

the main pretense of his work seems to be that these sites were designed to mimic the stars in the sky as they would have appeared in the year 105000BC.

he does not state that these places were built at that time, only that they were built to commemorate this time period.

in the documentary they show both the imperfect nature in which hancock's ruins match the sky, how he selectively uses some structures but nowhere near all, and how his explanation for the positioning of these sites is easily refuted using other, more rational means for their siting.

my question for ats is this: is there ANY creditability to what this man says? does he say anything worth listening to at all or is it all as poorly formed and irrelevant as this documentary made it seem?

cheers gang!




posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


Many of those types of documentaries are made to dispel what the fringe or alternative author has to state. They will take their works and quotes out of context and then give the majority of the time to a debunker who does a real hatchet job on the author.

Read Graham Hancock's books for yourself and be the judge. They are available at most libraries (so one does not have to buy them).

His ideas make sense when you read the book. I do disagree with some of what he has to say, but the overall theory he espouses does make sense.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   
The subject of and the research on Atlantis is not new.

I believe there are several author/researchers into this currently.

Michael Tsarion is one of them.
His book Atlantis; Alien Visitation and Genetic Manipulation is on line.

Atlantis

He also has a series of radio interviews on line.
Tsarion interviews

Also, to understand the Hancock info you should look at this site:
When Earth Nearly Died



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 03:02 PM
link   
reply to post by kidflash2008
 


actually graham gets more of the air time in this doc. when others are brought in to counter what he says they don't have to spend much tome to show the inconsistencies.

the primary one being that the sites he states are reflections of the stars in 105000bc are in fact, not.

the pyramids are similar but backwards. he states the pyramids and the orion stars are at 45 degrees when in fact the orion stars are at 54 degrees.

i forget the name of the temple in cambodia, but the way he tries to map out draco with the sites there is a very very poor map of the sky.

his response to being called on it is to attack the scientists who question his work in a sideways manner by continually stating that these earlier civilizations we not 'anal, narrow minded, looser (basically)".

basically i dont want to waste my time with his books unless someone here has a valid reason for me to do so. if there is any truth to what he says i would like ot hear about it before investing my time in what appears to be a media whore.



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 03:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


If you do decide to read one, I would recommend "Fingerprints of the Gods" if you ever have the time to read it. I think it helps to have an interest in this topic.

I am interested in the topic, and would recommend reading Colin Wilson's "Atlantis and the Kingdom of the Neanderthals" (one of the best titles ever!). One problem is the media (and even the authors) use the name Atlantis when they just mean an older unknown civilization.

There are a lot of measurements to keep track of when reading these authors. I would have to read my books on the pyramids again to see the alignments that are made.

[edit on 8/24/2009 by kidflash2008]



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Animal
So I just watched 'Atlantis Reborn' which is a documentary on G. Hancock's theories on the pyramids, sphinx, and other ancient sites in asia and south america.

my question for ats is this: is there ANY creditability to what this man says?


Not a scintilla.

Harte



posted on Aug, 24 2009 @ 04:57 PM
link   
Good indeed and i have watched other documentaries as well by Hancock on underwater world, which indeed sound solid. This documentary is from BBC; so i do not give much importance to it.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 02:18 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Animal

my question for ats is this: is there ANY creditability to what this man says?


Not a scintilla.

Harte


I would add more, but no need.....



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 

Hello Animal,

You write:


Animal: ...the pyramids are similar but backwards...."


SC: I presume by saying "...the pyramids are similar but backwards..." you are referring here to the Ed Krupp "Kruppside-down argument"? If so, then Krupp's fallacious argument has been thoroughly refuted and debunked.

You can read what Graham Hancock actually said and see how the BBC cutting room misrepresented this. And also Bauval's reaction here.

And here's a taste of what others thought of the BBC's antics:


Talking of horizons reminds me of a recent lunch with a property M.D. who was soliciting Earwig's advice regarding an invitation to appear on a current affairs programme to be broadcast by the BBC. Earwig advised in the most colourful of terms to reject the invitation and provided the M.D. with a ghastly demonstration of how easily the BBC can make a hatchet job of a good idea. The BBC's victim was Graham Hancock the author of the best sellers "Fingerprints of the Gods" and "Heavens Mirror". Trustingly, Graham Hancock agreed to appear on the BBC's flagship science programme Horizon.

Unfortunately for Graham Hancock his comment, argument and opinion were edited in such a way that his involvement ultimately led to the doors of the Broadcasting Standards Commission. The Commission found the BBC had been unfair to Graham Hancock and to their credit the BBC immediately took steps to re-edit the television programme. This was a first since the BBC began showing television programmes in 1936. The energy expelled when pursuing justice should be remembered by all who trustingly accept invitations to appear on television programmes. Earwig contacted Graham Hancock for comment but as ever this affable, charming man explained that it was an unfortunate event now assigned to the past. Earwig thinks that Graham Hancock is being extremely generous.


Source - EarWig (Business Age Magazine).

Since the Broadcasting Standards Commision found that Hancock and Bauval were judged to have been treated unfairly in this programme, the BBC were compelled by the Commission to change the original programme and broadcast a second programme with the Krupp counter-argument made by notable astronomers such as Professor Archie Roy of Glasgow University who supported Hancock and Bauval's view regarding the nonsense Kruppside-down argument.

So, is there any scintilla of credibility in what the upholders of mainstream opinion i.e. the BBC, have said (or NOT said) regarding this issue?

Well, you be the judge.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 25/8/2009 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 08:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Scott Creighton
reply to post by Animal
 

Hello Animal,

You write:


Animal: ...the pyramids are similar but backwards...."


SC: I presume by saying "...the pyramids are similar but backwards..." you are referring here to the Ed Krupp "Kruppside-down argument"? If so, then Krupp's fallacious argument has been thoroughly refuted and debunked.

You can read what Graham Hancock actually said and see how the BBC cutting room misrepresented this. And also Bauval's reaction here.


No actually the content of your post WAS on the BBS show. The problem is with Hancock not the BBC.

Okay so in this instance the builders of this monument were just mimicking the stars, oh but wait, they were merely mimicking the stars as they appears 102500 years before their lifetime? really? ya lets not forget that part, he himself stated that these star maps were made to mimic the stars of 10500 NOT the era they were constructed in. so this idea that they were tracing the stars as they saw them on the blank canvas of the desert does not really apply does it?

in fact if they were so amazing in their ability to calculate the changes in star positions over the 102500 years why then would they not just as accurately depict this on the ground? why is the angel between the first 2 and the 3rd pyramid 54degrees in stead of 45degrees?

you blame the bbc and dr Krupp but they are simply pointing out the very large holes in hancocks theory.



So, is there any scintilla of credibility in what the upholders of mainstream opinion i.e. the BBC, have said (or NOT said) regarding this issue?

Well, you be the judge.

Regards,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 25/8/2009 by Scott Creighton]


well is the ONLY problem with hancock's theory were the ones regarding ht pyramid that would be one thing, but the reality is that in every instance that was part of this documentary hancock's ideas had some really pretty big holes. sadly the only way he could explain away discrepancies at EACH of the sites in the ducumentary was to say somethign along the lines of what he said in regards to the inperfections of the pyramid design:

If you're extremely pedantic and believe that the ancient Egyptian priesthood was a group of narrow-minded bureaucrats determined to follow procedure above all else, then its true that the northernmost star is depicted in the southernmost place on the ground, and the southernmost star in the northernmost place on the ground, and this is what Ed Krupp is getting at. But if you regard it as a work of symbolic and religious art meant to copy on the ground what the observer sees in the sky, then there's just no other way you can make it than the way it is made.
link which is basically, everyone else is wrong, i'm right, and i am going to be a bit of a prat and attack them for not agreeing iwth my fairly weak science.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   
If you want to read one of his books read Supernatural, he gave up on the "Lost Civilisation" quest a few years ago and Supernatural is all about altered states of consciousness.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 10:43 AM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 

Hello Animal,


Animal: ...the pyramids are similar but backwards...."

SC: I presume by saying "...the pyramids are similar but backwards..." you are referring here to the Ed Krupp "Kruppside-down argument"? If so, then Krupp's fallacious argument has been thoroughly refuted and debunked.

You can read what Graham Hancock actually said and see how the BBC cutting room misrepresented this. And also Bauval's reaction here.

Animal: No actually the content of your post WAS on the [sic]BBC show. The problem is with Hancock not the BBC.


SC: Alas, however, mud sticks and most - it seems - only ever remember the original programme and use it as a stick to beat Hancock and Bauval with. You are here questioning Hancock’s credibility, are you not? In your OP you raised Krupp’s issue of the stars being “…backwards…” when this had already been refuted in the re-edited show. Do you not understand Bauval’s rebuttal (supported by archaeo-astronomy Professors Roy and Seymour) of Krupp’s argument? It’s really very simple:




Animal: Okay so in this instance the builders of this monument were just mimicking the stars, oh but wait, they were merely mimicking the stars as they appear [sic] 8,500 years before their lifetime? really?


SC: So it would seem, yes. The Edfu Building Texts tell us quite clearly that the AEs built their temples according to architectural plans that came to them in a codex from the heavens at Saqqara in the days of Imhotep. I do not consider it unreasonable to consider that this could refer to a plan of a particular group of stars in the heavens i.e. Orion’s Belt.


Animal: ya lets not forget that part, he himself stated that these star maps were made to mimic the stars of 10500 NOT the era they were constructed in. so this idea that they were tracing the stars as they saw them on the blank canvas of the desert does not really apply does it?


SC: Well what is clear from the Edfu Building Texts is that architectural plans of some kind (a ‘codex’) was apparently passed down over time and that Imhotep initiated the implementation of these plans by constructing the first pyramid, the Step Pyramid at Saqqara. If someone in the future (8,500 years from now) found plans of your house (perhaps crafted in granite) they would then be able to recreate your house. As long as the plan is presented clearly and in a way that can resist the ravages of time (such as a granite model perhaps) then re-creating the structure many years later should not prove too difficult.


Animal: in fact if they were so amazing in their ability to calculate the changes in star positions over the 102500 years why then would they not just as accurately depict this on the ground?


SC: First of all, the Designers of the architectural plans (the ‘codex’) were not the same people as the builders – they were separated by some 8,500 years. Remember also that the AE tell us in a number of sources that the birth of their civilisation predates the Dynastic period by tens of thousands of years.

Secondly, the Designers (if not the AE of the 4th Dynasty) did understand pre3cessional motion and could calculate and project star positions far into the future as evidenced here.


Animal: why is the [sic] angle between the first 2 and the 3rd pyramid 54degrees instead of 45degrees?


SC: I believe this is why Bauval has pushed the date for the meridian alignment further back to nearer 11,500BC. In my own opinion, however, there is little need to do this. I simply do not accept Bauval’s view that a meridian correlation exists. It simply does not make sense and is problematic in a number of ways which I won’t go into here. Indeed, Egyptologist Jane B. Sellers is quite adamant that the AEs were horizon watchers. This means that if such an alignment with the Belt stars were to be made it would occur with the belt stars on the southern horizon as indicated in the Flash clip above.


Animal: you blame the bbc and dr Krupp but they are simply pointing out the very large holes in hancocks theory.


SC: I am not in the ‘blame game’. I am simply pointing out the flaw in Krupp’s argument that the BBC initially backed and – in so doing – effectively undermined the credibility of what Hancock and Bauval are arguing. This is addressing your OP. That the BBC later recanted and broadcast an apology is mostly forgotten in all of this for – as stated above – mud sticks.


Animal: well is the ONLY problem with hancock's theory were the ones regarding ht pyramid that would be one thing, but the reality is that in every instance that was part of this documentary hancock's ideas had some really pretty big holes. sadly the only way he could explain away discrepancies at EACH of the sites in the ducumentary was to say somethign along the lines of what he said in regards to the inperfections of the pyramid design:


SC: Personally I think Hancock raises many legitimate questions in his research and I am sure he will be the first to admit that he has made some mistakes in his research. This should not, however, detract from the serious and legitimate questions that he has raised with regards to our history and origins.


Animal: which is basically, everyone else is wrong, i'm right, and i am going to be a bit of a prat and attack them for not agreeing with my fairly weak science.


SC: From your statement above where you start by asking a (leading) question regarding Hancock’s credibility, it seems to me your own mind is already made up. Why then ask such a question?

You seem to be suggesting that Professors Roy and Seymour (who agree with Hancock & Bauval and disagree with Krupp) must then also be prats? How so?

Regards,

Scott Creighton



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   
first off scott you ignore the fact the hancock doe snot appear to have made 'some mistakes' but that the entire mapping the stars of 10500bc with monument son the earth proves to be a very tenuous connection to draw. in every instance that hancock presents there is plenty of information that would lead the serious scholar to question the claims made by hanckock.

my mind was not made up about hancock when writing this thread nor is it now. i do have serious reservations about what was shown to me in the documentary that lead me to question his line of reasoning. this doe snot mean i am dismissing hancock wholesale.

you suggest that i am saying that Professors Roy and Seymour are 'prats' and i don't even know who they are. just because i disagree with a hypothetical statement does not mean i am critiquing anyone and everyone who agrees with it. i don't play games like that.

most importantly to me, in your last reply you made several references to

The Edfu Building Texts tell us quite clearly that the AEs built their temples according to architectural plans that came to them in a codex from the heavens at Saqqara in the days of Imhotep.
you make mention of this 'codex' as the reason behind the forms seen on gaza. could you link me to anything that supports this claim? my understanding was that the 'building texts' found on edfu were in relation to ITS construction not of other buildings. while these texts did talk about the history of importance of buildings in the area its construction details were reserved to edfu. though i could be wrong.

if the AEs were building these monuments on such information i would like to see some proof of it. we have so much information set in stone in Egypt how is it something as important as this was not?

i personally am a firm believer in an alternate history of the world and of human kind. simply disagreeing with hancock's hypothesis is in no way me saying that i disbelieve in such a reality. i simply find his ideas to be a bit poorly supported by the facts.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 12:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 

Hello Animal,


Animal: first off scott you ignore the fact the hancock does not appear to have made 'some mistakes' but that the entire mapping the stars of 10500bc with monument son the earth proves to be a very tenuous connection to draw.


SC: Tenuous connection? I have to disagree.

Do you think it is some remarkable coincidence that that the Belt stars of the Orion constellation just happen to define the base dimensions of all THREE main Gizamids and also defines the placement of the 2 sets of so-called Queens Pyramids?

See here.

Do you consider it some remarkable coincidence that the 2 sets of so-called Queens pyramids depict the 2 culminations of the Belt stars as shown here?


Animal: in every instance that hancock presents there is plenty of information that would lead the serious scholar to question the claims made by hanckock.


SC: And if ANYONE takes cognisance of what has been presented to you in the above presentations, I think your statement of a “…tenuous connection…” of the Gizamids with Orion’s Belt would ring hollow indeed. Given the evidence presented above I think that – on balance – there is every reason to consider the Orion/Giza connection perfectly reasonable and viable.


Animal: my mind was not made up about hancock when writing this thread nor is it now. i do have serious reservations about what was shown to me in the documentary that lead me to question his line of reasoning. this does not mean i am dismissing hancock wholesale.


SC: Part of what was shown to you i.e. the supposed “…backward pyramids…” (in the BBC documentary) was a fallacy propagated by Ed Krupp which has been shown by two other eminent professors (Roy and Seymour) to be wholly unfounded so there is little reason then for you to continue to hold this Kruppside-down argument as a reason to have “…serious reservations…”. Krupp’s argument has been dismissed. Period. The Kruppside-down argument simply does not exist as the diagram I posted should also demonstrate to you. Indeed, it is a matter of record that Krupp’s wife drew a copy of the belt stars with Mintaka to the top of the page when her own husband argued it should be at the bottom (i.e.bottom = modern south). The AEs themselves regarded our south as “up” as it was in this direction that the source of the Nile existed.


Animal: you suggest that i am saying that Professors Roy and Seymour are 'prats' and i don't even know who they are. just because i disagree with a hypothetical statement does not mean i am critiquing anyone and everyone who agrees with it. i don't play games like that.


SC: Well Professors Roy and Seymour disagreed with Krupp (as did Hancock and Bauval). You seem to have the view of Hancock that if anyone objects with his particular view, then Hancock somehow considers them ‘prats’. Well on this very point Professors Roy and Seymour ALSO disagreed with Krupp. So, by extension then, because someone disagrees with Krupp (in your view) they must be ‘prats’.


Animal: most importantly to me, in your last reply you made several references to :

SC: The Edfu Building Texts tell us quite clearly that the AEs built their temples according to architectural plans that came to them in a codex from the heavens at Saqqara in the days of Imhotep.

Animal: you make mention of this 'codex' as the reason behind the forms seen on gaza. could you link me to anything that supports this claim?


SC: Only to the primary source i.e. the Edfu Building Texts.


Animal: my understanding was that the 'building texts' found on edfu were in relation to ITS construction not of other buildings. while these texts did talk about the history of importance of buildings in the area its construction details were reserved to edfu. though i could be wrong.


SC: The Building Texts tell us very clearly that the architectural plans “came from the heavens at Saqqara in the days of Imhotep”. Well, Imhotep lived thousands of years before the present Temple of Edfu was built. The codex was ‘received’ at Saqqara!! And what is Saqqara most notable for? For the construction of the world’s first pyramid – the Step Pyramid of King Djoser (3rd Dynasty), built by Imhotep.


Animal: if the AEs were building these monuments on such information i would like to see some proof of it. we have so much information set in stone in Egypt how is it something as important as this was not?


SC: The AEs tell us in their own words that they used architectural plans (plural) that came from the heavens. This is what the Building Texts say. The actual plans may no longer exist but why should we doubt what the AEs themselves tell us?


Animal: i personally am a firm believer in an alternate history of the world and of human kind. simply disagreeing with hancock's hypothesis is in no way me saying that i disbelieve in such a reality. i simply find his ideas to be a bit poorly supported by the facts.


SC: Of course you are entitled to your views but with regards to the Orion/Giza hypothesis, I think there is ample evidence to support it and to consider it more probable than not.

Regards,

Scott Creighton



[edit on 25/8/2009 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 03:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Animal
 


Why not read his books from the library and decide for yourself? Winter is approaching and there is nothing like reading a good book with the cold wind howling outside. If I would have listened to some of the people on this forum, I never would have read his books and opened my mind to more ideas.



posted on Aug, 25 2009 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by kidflash2008
 


Nicely said and not a bad idea at all.

The nights are fair drawing in!!

SC



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 04:45 AM
link   
I've just seen the atlantis reborn as well, and i was wondering about the pyramids at 13.12 in the vid.. - i printscreened the video and came up with this:


I've just moved the picture.. AND made a straight line in the pyramid tops. it fits perfectly ! calculation mistake or is it ment to be this way?


bvahahaha see for yourself's.

[edit on 11-9-2009 by danishguru]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by danishguru
 

Hello Danishguru,

You write:


Dansihguru: calculation mistake or is it ment to be this way?


SC: I've rendered your image using the Giza Plateau Mapping Project's hi-res map of the Giza site. Your line does not go through G3 centre. See here:



My own research convinces me that it is G2 (the centre pyramid of Khafre) that is 'misaligned' from the so-called 'Lehner Line' (see below).



There is indeed evidence at Giza that G2 was intended to have been constructed further north and east which would have placed it on the Lehner Line. As we can see, however, G2's platform does indeed touch the Lehner Line as do many other Giza structures (yellow dots).

So why did the builders keep G2's platform on the Lehner Line but offset the base of Khafre's pyramid from this diagonal?

Perhaps to demonstrate this:



With the fulcrum of the line set to Al Nitak and Mintaka we can see then that the centre belt stars, Al Nilam, is offset from the line. This may then explain why Khafre's pyramid is slightly offset from the Lehener line, to mimic what is in the heavens.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton

[edit on 11/9/2009 by Scott Creighton]



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 11:18 AM
link   


The Building Texts tell us very clearly that the architectural plans “came from the heavens at Saqqara in the days of Imhotep”.


Perhaps it would be wise to post a link to the translation of the Edfu building text.



posted on Sep, 11 2009 @ 12:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Hanslune
 

Hello Hans,


Hans: Perhaps it would be wise to post a link to the translation of the Edfu building text.


SC: I guess this is a case of "Do as I say, not as I do." Unbelieveable!

See Aldred, “The Egyptians” 3rd Edition, p.32.

And when are you going to post a link to the Hall of Ma'at where you claim my work received killer blows. I have lost count now of the number of times you have been asked to present this. You haven't because ypou CAN'T. Period. So, if you can't back up what you are saying, then don't even bother saying it.

Your hypocrisy here is surpassed only by your complete lack of credibility.

Best wishes,

Scott Creighton



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join