Setting History Free. interview with Graham Hancock

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:11 PM
link   
David Wilcock interviews Graham Hancock. It's pretty much amazing. Enjoy...

www.youtube.com...

sorry about the minimal thread, I felt you all should see this.




posted on May, 27 2010 @ 02:32 PM
link   
Graham Hancock's stuff (especially Fingerprints of the Gods) is really interesting if you're into ancient civilizations, Atlantis, and the origins of the Sphinx and Pyramids. I'll watch the whole thing after my doctor's appointment.



posted on May, 27 2010 @ 04:40 PM
link   
I just watched it all the way through, wow! Thank you for posting it. I am huge fan of both of these individuals. Now I want even more of Graham Hancock's books.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 12:09 AM
link   
"Setting History Free?!" Hancock and Wilcock are bound to be interesting. They are both strangers to the truth. Wilcock wilfully ignores anything that doesn't add to his schtick. Hancock casually tosses in 'facts' with the certainty of someone who's spent hours reading academic history...but, litters the facts with misinformation

He picks out small facts, spins them, misshapes them and somehow contrives to present them as evidence of ancient astronauts. There's a small Hebrew temple on Egypt's Elephantine Island...no scaled replica of Solomon's Temple. Suddenly we're in Ethiopia! The Ark is described in the Bible as made from acacia wood. Somehow Hancock, characterises the object as an 'out of place artifact' of great technology?! WTF just happened?

He's great at this. He's like a conjurer. "Watch this fact! Watch this fact! Woah....Ta Da! High technology from a lost race. Wow."

The Ark was a box. Egyptians had boxes. They transported stone blocks. From these facts he suggests Egyptians used lost technology to transport the blocks! He is GOOD!

Rather than 'set history free,' these are the people that actively bury, tangle, restrain and conceal history.

Edit to add: 40 minutes into the video and I'm amazed how many times the same BS gets trawled out to 'join the dots.' Jeez, I'm appalled how I used to believe this stuff.

[edit on 28-5-2010 by Kandinsky]



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 08:08 AM
link   
His version of history makes much more sense than what we were taught in school.

We don't have the technology to do what many cultures have done.

How did they move stones miles from the quarry, that our latest equipment can't even budge? They may not have been technologically more advanced, but they were more advanced in many other ways.

Like Graham says during the interview... If there really was an advanced civilization, that really was wiped out by some major catastrophe (which I believe there was) Then we should really start to look into all of these "mysteries".



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 09:38 AM
link   

Originally posted by someguy420
How did they move stones miles from the quarry, that our latest equipment can't even budge?

There exists no stone placed by any ancient culture that today's cranes cannot move with complete and utter ease.

Harte



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 03:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Kandinsky
 


Graham Hancock does not adhere to the ancient astronaut theory. In his book "Supernatural" he states that he does not believe any nuts and bolts craft from another world has been to this world. (His claim is there was a really old civilization around 12,000 years ago.)

While I do not agree with all of his conclusions, his books are interesting none the less.



posted on May, 28 2010 @ 05:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
There exists no stone placed by any ancient culture that today's cranes cannot move with complete and utter ease.

Harte


Even the ones that make up the foundation at Baalbek? If so, I am really impressed that the ancients had access to our current construction equipment.

Some of the nay-sayers on this thread seem to not understand that the video interview is not intended to prove anything, in and of itself. It is mostly just a rundown of Hancock's books. One would have to actually read one of them to "debunk" the concepts he talks about.



posted on May, 29 2010 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kandinsky

Suddenly we're in Ethiopia! The Ark is described in the Bible as made from acacia wood. Somehow Hancock, characterises the object as an 'out of place artifact' of great technology?!

Well I watched the whole video and I found it to be intriguing, so I just felt the need to point out that Graham does say the box is made of wood, he implies that whatever the Ark contains within is an out of place artifact because of the many ancient descriptions such as in the Bible that suggest there is a vast amount of heavy radiation emanating from the object. To be more precise the Ark was said to contain the original tablets of the Ten Commandments, which is not made of wood. Perhaps stone or material infused with radioactive properties, who knows.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
The Ark was a box. Egyptians had boxes. They transported stone blocks. From these facts he suggests Egyptians used lost technology to transport the blocks! He is GOOD!

I don't think that analogy or explanation was used at all. From my understanding they said there exists blocks weighing thousands of tons that were used to build these structures, and if its true that the structures were built more then 12000 years ago according to Grahams theory then finding a good explanation of how the people moved the blocks with the minimal technology known to exist at that time would be a mystery. On a side note I heard this tale before of claims of how there is some sort of levitating technology used to move the stones around, and it definitely is not something Graham made up, I've heard this fairy tale before
.

[edit on 29-5-2010 by lastdragon]

[edit on 29-5-2010 by lastdragon]



posted on May, 30 2010 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by someguy420
How did they move stones miles from the quarry, that our latest equipment can't even budge?

There exists no stone placed by any ancient culture that today's cranes cannot move with complete and utter ease.

Harte


I can personally move around loads of 20 to 30 tons with ease using the cranes and equipment that I have been trained to operate. When the loads get up to 70-80 tons this movement is no longer "done with ease" as it requires heavy equipment to handle. Loads of 150 tons or more is even more difficult yet as special cranes are needed as well as heavy rigging that require several men to set up. One move from ship to rail, or truck, can take several days to achieve with a dozen or so men throughout the operation.

I have seen equipment that can handle 300-400 tones and have read about cranes that can pick up well over 1,000 tones but this "done with ease" comment has no place here that's for sure. You are correct about one thing though, there are no stones placed by any ancient culture that today's cranes cannot move, but this is only part of the whole story. We cannot build these huge structures today simple because we do not have a reason to do so and this brings up the big question, why did they did it.



posted on May, 31 2010 @ 11:10 PM
link   
One of the best videos I've seen linked. Make sure you watch it to the end as the last 3rd is at least as interesting as the first two.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by Devino
 


Nice B***h-slap on the old disinfo there Devino. Nice to see someone with a solid raft of knowledge and experience coming to the fore and sharing that knowledge for the greater benefit of the thread. Harte, seriously - stop it.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by AmethystSD

Originally posted by Harte
There exists no stone placed by any ancient culture that today's cranes cannot move with complete and utter ease.

Harte


Even the ones that make up the foundation at Baalbek? If so, I am really impressed that the ancients had access to our current construction equipment.

Baalbek is quite impressive, I'd agree.

So are most of the other Roman constructions.


Some of the nay-sayers on this thread seem to not understand that the video interview is not intended to prove anything, in and of itself. It is mostly just a rundown of Hancock's books. One would have to actually read one of them to "debunk" the concepts he talks about.

I've done both, with results posted here at ATS.

My post was in response to the continual assertion that ancient peoples moved stones in ways that "even we can't duplicate today."

That claim is evidence only of lazy mindedness and a weird need for fantasy "mysteries" in a world filled with real mysteries that are somehow not "mysterious" enough for some people.

Harte

[edit on 6/1/2010 by Harte]



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 11:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Devino
I have seen equipment that can handle 300-400 tones and have read about cranes that can pick up well over 1,000 tones but this "done with ease" comment has no place here that's for sure.

Depends on how you read it, but I know what you mean.

Here's what I meant:
This crane can lift 20,000 metric tons.
Of course, it's stationary so it wouldn't be the first choice, unless you planned to build a Baalbak replica directly under it.

These two to follow are portable, though:

1600 tons
Double the weight of the largest Baalbak stone.

1100 tons

38% more weight than the largest Baalbak stone.

"Complete and utter ease" in the area of pushing up against the capacity of the crane.

Not that the job itself would be an easy one.

Harte



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 11:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by NoahTheSumerian
reply to post by Devino
 


Nice B***h-slap on the old disinfo there Devino. Nice to see someone with a solid raft of knowledge and experience coming to the fore and sharing that knowledge for the greater benefit of the thread. Harte, seriously - stop it.


You'd better start ignoring me like your Gods told you to do.

The Anunna don't like their acolytes disobeying them.

Harte



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   
reply to post by NoahTheSumerian
 


Nice B***h-slap on the old disinfo there Devino.


Hardly...

More like an individual demonstration of 'mystery' having the upper hand over reading. I guess we'd still be throwing rocks at predators without some individuals rising to a challenge and using their imagination.

I wonder if the first hominids to knap tools from stone had an audience of doubters? It'd be ironic if the first spear point was demonstrated on the dopes who thought it couldn't be done.


Harte's a grumpy SOB, but is rarely wrong when he makes a point. Disinfo and factual accuracy are not the same thing.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 11:39 AM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


in teh army the ship cranes picked up our 72 ton tanks with ease for sure. didn't take them more than a minute or two to yank that sucker off the ground and put it in the loading bay.

however i would say that yanking 72 tons of the ground and putting it on a boat is quite a bit different than doing that in the middle of the desert with no cranes and a high degree of accuracy continued a million or so times.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 12:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by AmethystSD

Originally posted by Harte
There exists no stone placed by any ancient culture that today's cranes cannot move with complete and utter ease.

Harte


Even the ones that make up the foundation at Baalbek? If so, I am really impressed that the ancients had access to our current construction equipment.



Thats what I thought of. What are they 200 tons and up?



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 12:46 PM
link   
Arent you guys forgetting that these stones where quarried sometimes miles away with a mountain or valley in between? Oh ya, and they weren't supposed to have steel. Are those cranes you linked capable of driving up and down hills carrying 1000ton blocks?

Also, I seem to recall reading that at Baalbek there is no evidence of a road leading from the quary to the ruin site but I could be wrong.



posted on Jun, 1 2010 @ 12:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

Originally posted by Devino
I have seen equipment that can handle 300-400 tones and have read about cranes that can pick up well over 1,000 tones but this "done with ease" comment has no place here that's for sure.

Depends on how you read it, but I know what you mean.

Here's what I meant:
This crane can lift 20,000 metric tons.
Of course, it's stationary so it wouldn't be the first choice, unless you planned to build a Baalbak replica directly under it.

These two to follow are portable, though:

1600 tons
Double the weight of the largest Baalbak stone.

1100 tons





These cranes just make thinking of how they did it at Baalbak then even the more problematic. But they did it some how thats for sure.





new topics
top topics
 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join