Setting History Free. interview with Graham Hancock

Originally posted by someguy420
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.

Hi someguy420, thanks for posting this interview.
I just listen with great interest to just a small part of it so far, the beginning, and already I cannot say other than that it is and will be no doubt a very interesting interview for me personally.

Thanks again.

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

I wasn't always like this, BTW.

I think I started to change around the 45th time I had to explain the Coso Afrtifact wasn't found inside a geode.

Originally posted by NOrrTH
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?

I haven't claimed that similar cranes were uesed at Baalbak.

This is why I am grumpy.

My post was in response to the (seemingly) eternal claim that "even today, we can't duplicate..." this or that construction.

AFAIK, the Romans used winches (not wenches) to move these stones. Use the search function and find where a poster named Hans has explained this.

Originally posted by NOrrTHAlso, 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.

I believe there was a link put in this thread to Doug's Archaeology Site. There is enough info there to explain to you the distances and obstacles involved in moving the large stones to the site of the Roman Temple.

Originally posted by Spazzy
reply to post by Harte

 

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.

The number of large stones in the Great Pyramid that have been set with any kind of accuracy at all is less than twenty or so. Of course, not every stone in the pyramid has been seen so that figure is somewhat speculative in regards to the total number of accurately set stones.

The casing stones, which were likely quite accurately carved, are long gone.

Most stones in the Great Pyramid are set in quite haphazardly, as you might expect would be the case when large work crews, ramps, ropes and mortar are involved.

Most of the stones are in layers that have never even been levelled.

Harte

reply to post by NOrrTH

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.

The quarry was around 600 yards uphill from where the stone was laid. They moved it downhill. The Romans had windlasses, animals, humans and prepared ground. On top of that, they had experience and time on their side.

Romans transported Egyptian obelisks all the way to Rome in the 1st Century AD. Check out the Lateran Obelisk. 500 tons transported over 1000 miles

reply to post by Harte
Hiya Harte. People keep swallowing the red herrings of fringe writers and believing the pyramids were 'perfect.' These images aren't screaming 'perfect.'

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c878b439818f.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/a20a9af383bd.jpg[/atsimg]

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/afc011dc8685.jpg[/atsimg]

That second one has crazy Barsoum in the shot. The guy that claimed Giza was built from concrete blocks.

:reply to harte and kandinsky

slanderous, ridiculous, and childish are the first 3 words that come to mind reading yoru comments.

let's forget for a second that it doesn't make any differene whether or not a crane can lift these stones. let's also forget that the arguable degree of accuracy is totally irrelevant.

how about we turn the microscope on you two songbirds that show up and spread disease wherever you go. your "intellectual" acrobatics aren't fooling anyone. there is a lot of material on that video. most of it you wouldn't have the courage to tell to a classroom full of kindergarten students.

just watching how you two keenly avoid breaking any terms of service yet maintain the highest level of veiled insults an slander is amusing. trudging the entire thread off topic from the very get go. why can't you just be happy insulting yourself? why do you think it's necessary to come here and pillage a perfectly good thread and turn it into a slander fest bashing every living organism that comes within 10 yards of undiscovered civilizations.

what are you so afraid of? or do your masters not even allow you to know?

[edit on 1-6-2010 by Spazzy]

i would also like to comment on the underwater structers in the pacific near japan that graham hancock did more than a 100 dives into. i think this is a perfect example of the magnitude that the discoveries in question encompass.

so far the best explanation i've heard from the skeptics is that these are natural rock formations caused by water eroding them into their current shapes. well if that's the case then how are the shapes re eroding back to natural formations? kindly explain that one to me. it's like saying a piece of bread left on the counter will turn rock hard but then will later become totally edible again. several of the formations were clearly eroded into circular/spherical patterns and the sharp edges themselves showed signs of erosion.

another great point the video makes is the piri reis map. if you'll remember, the makers of that map had intellectual integrity and owned up to the fact that they themselves did not create it but had just copied it from older source maps.

Enjoy

[edit on 1-6-2010 by Spazzy]

Excellent interview, Graham rocks as usual, David Wilcock was a little our of his element, should say way out of his element, the good news is that Graham did most of the talking.

reply to post by Spazzy
Yonaguni's a dead horse that keeps being flogged around here.

It's a natural formation of limestone bedrock. The Ryuku Island chain are formed from the same horizontal layers. The earliest people of the islands date to about 5000BC and were mainly foragers. They made some pots and left behind large shellfish middens next to their pit dwellings.

There isn't a single geologist on the planet that still considers the formation to be anything other than natural. Even Robert Schoch has dived down there and concluded it natural.

BTW try to keep your comments polite. If I can respond politely to the same points (what's new to you has been posted for years around here), I'm sure you can do likewise. Your insults are unnecessary and have hidden whatever point you were attempting to make. Perhaps you could try again and try to be much clearer?

reply to post by Harte

I simple felt your comment could appear disingenuous and wanted to add my opinion on moving heavy loads. It's one thing to Google crane hoist capacities (20k MT is very impressive btw) and quite another being an operator of said cranes, involved in their construction or otherwise involved in the rigging and movement of these loads.

I agree with you that these claims that we can't hoist this much weight today can be annoying but keep in mind that this is far from easy. It is difficult, expensive, time consuming and very dangerous work not to mention that it requires a lot of electricity to power the motors.

Let's take a look at this from another perspective.

My post was in response to the (seemingly) eternal claim that "even today, we can't duplicate..." this or that construction.

It's quite obvious that it is false to claim that we cannot lift loads of equal amounts of weight. However it is equally as false to claim that simply because we can lift loads as heavy or heavier means we can duplicate these huge structures. We might be able to achieve such constructions but I don't think we will ever really know. The question comes down to purpose. I know the reason why we have cranes today and why we move heavy loads around. The purpose for some of these ancient megalithic structures, however, doesn't add up in my opinion. Unless, as only one example, you truly believe that the great pyramid was built as a tomb for Khufu.

There is one comment made in this interview that I find particularly intriguing and Graham Hancock isn't the first person to say this. I think it has been called collective amnesia, trauma induced amnesia. It is the idea that something in our past has caused us to inherently forget. Not only has it been forgotten but these topics are taboo, "profanity" of sorts.

It appears as though civilizations sprung up over night. There is, at least, a definite period of separation between prehistory and recorded history. Prehistoric nomads settled into civilizations yet we don't really understand why.
There is evidence of huge structures that predates written language.
There is also evidence of many great efforts to destroy all knowledge about our past. Why?
We know as a matter of fact that huge numbers of written documents about our past have been destroyed throughout history all over the world, the question is how much.

I'm just posting here to remind myself to watch this...

reply to post by Kandinsky


I don't know what to think of your comment here. I am no expert on the great pyramids but I have read a few books about them and a number of articles.

From what I have read I find this comment offensive. You show pictures of the effects that several centuries of stone robbers have had on these monuments. For precision you should focus on the casing stones, foundation, measurement and angle commensurate, alignments to the cardinal points and (theoretically) the stars. Or how about the ascending and descending shafts; their angles, alignments and the manner in which they were carved out of the surrounding blocks.

It is of my opinion that we have a long way to go in understanding what these structures were originally built for.

reply to post by Devino

It appears as though civilizations sprung up over night. There is, at least, a definite period of separation between prehistory and recorded history. Prehistoric nomads settled into civilizations yet we don't really understand why.

There are very good reasons why nomads settled down and gradually built the settelements that would become civilisations.

Early man was held to the seasons and the migrations of his food supplies. Settling down while the rains and herds moved elsewhere would be foolish. Egyptian nomads followed the rains and the animals, but gradually began to domesticate their cattle. Not in the same sense we do, they husbanded their cattle and took them with them as they travelled. The Apis Bull myths likley originate from this period.

There's evidence that early man began to sow wild grasses...agriculture. The wild grasses bore grain. Over generations, people found they had the plants and meat they needed in one place. By settling near wells, lakes or rivers, they had access to water. The land near rivers is fertile for agriculture and would attract wildlife (food).

They are just a few basic reasons for the settlling.

The civilisation aspects are inevitable if you study history, anthropology or economics. Surplus food and water leads to recreational time that leads to technological improvements. Spear points become more efficient. Hand axes become hafted. Mythologies and language become more complex as words are created to describe or relate ideas and objects. These are the stirrings of a distinct culture.

7000BC a person could look at their surroundings. There might be several dozen people...mostly young teenagers due to mortality rates and hostile conditions. They travel from one familiar area to another throughout the year. They may have several cattle to tap their blood and use for meat when times are hard or the animal is old enough. Hunting is the main source of food. They trade with other tribes and fight with some.

5000BC a person looks around. They live in a settlement on the banks of a lake. There are several hundred people with a greater age-range. Cultivated grasses blow in the breeze while herds of cattle graze. They still hunt. Grain is stored in ceramic pots. Trade within the settlement and with other settlements is common. The area has guards posted to protect their resources from attack from other nomadic tribes. The chief or leader has a larger dwelling to show status and makes the rules. Justice is likely to be bloody.

As communities grew in size, complex systems naturally appeared to maintain order. Civilisation didn't spring up...it developed down dead-ends and successes. At times slowly and other times seemingly at breakneck speeds as advances led to ever more.

The idea of 'collective amnesia' is an attractive one if we are looking to place a lost civilisation in our distant past. There's no doubt we've lost a lot of knowledge to history. On the other hand, archaeologists are forever weaving away at the tapestry of our past. Each new thread adds to the fabric and gradually we begin to see the patterns of previous cultures.

I recommend listening to some of these history programmes. 15 minutes each and will probably clear up a few of your questions about civilisation.

reply to post by Kandinsky


What a cool site, I love the BBC. Thanks.

I would like to emphasize on this complete lack of information though. It is extremely frustrating to try and learn about the Maya calendar, for instance, only to read the same few sources over and over. These ancient astronomers took extremely precise measurements that rival today's science yet almost all of their written records were destroyed by the Catholic church. And by almost all I mean all but 4 codices and the indestructible monuments.

The questions I have are why destroy everything and, more importantly, what was destroyed? I assume the reasons were fear based, i.e. religion, yet the question why still remains unanswered. Why were they afraid? Is it normal for humans to destroy what they fear?
Yes let's show those pagan barbarians how not to sacrifice people by killing hundreds of thousands of them and destroying their entire culture.

This was not an isolated incidence nor has it totally stopped. There still appears to be a suppression of information going on or an inability to accept what is being found. I don't believe in the ancient astronauts theory but I do understand why some people might believe this stuff. Science does have a very bad habit of dismissing anything that doesn't fit their a priori.

Originally posted by Kandinsky
reply to post by Spazzy

 

Yonaguni's a dead horse that keeps being flogged around here.

It's a natural formation of limestone bedrock. The Ryuku Island chain are formed from the same horizontal layers. The earliest people of the islands date to about 5000BC and were mainly foragers. They made some pots and left behind large shellfish middens next to their pit dwellings.

There isn't a single geologist on the planet that still considers the formation to be anything other than natural. Even Robert Schoch has dived down there and concluded it natural.

BTW try to keep your comments polite. If I can respond politely to the same points (what's new to you has been posted for years around here), I'm sure you can do likewise. Your insults are unnecessary and have hidden whatever point you were attempting to make. Perhaps you could try again and try to be much clearer?

ok let me see if i can be a little more clear. the article you posted isn't biased one way or another and schoch's "evidence" taht it's natural is a total joke.

he said something along the lines of watching typhoons smash rocks into striaght patterns. this has got to be hte largest load of dung i've read in a long time. watching typhoons up close huh? sounds more like aquaman than a geologist.

but wait there was another angle to the "natural formation" theory. they said taht the structure cahnges when you get up close adn it no longer looks manmade. it's a shame they didn't include any pictures of this and the only picutres they posted are far and away excellent evidence of it being manmade.

lastly the article ends by citing lots of evidence that it is, in fact, manmade. did you even read that article or did you expect other peopel to not care?

oh and that wiki link, is that supposed to mean something? or did you just want to look professional by using hyperlinks?

so please explain to me how this is a dead horse in such favor of your side would you? and please don't quote any more superhero typhoon fighting geologists ok?

Originally posted by someguy420
David Wilcock interviews Graham Hancock. It's pretty much amazing. Enjoy...

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

Hi someguy420, I just finished listen to the whole interview and I cannot say other than that I do find Hancock's views and thoughts very interesting, I really enjoyed it.

Thanks again.

[edit on 2/6/10 by spacevisitor]

reply to post by Kandinsky


here's another great example of you "correcting" someone when you're really not saying anything at all. you lay down a bunch of facts (that i don't dispute) that don't really prove anything and even if they did it doesn't really even address what the person was saying in the first place.

if your timeframe is correct then you're saying civilization sprang up in around a few thousand years. how is this not miniscule when compared to the lifespan of the human race? how could your own words do anyting but strongly support and verify the actual point that you're trying to debate.

secondly, what you fail to notice is how reality works. things aren't as cut and dry and you make them seem. you paint the picture as if everyoen was sitting around in one big family doing the same things at the same times.

well if what you're sayign is true then how is it that the world stilll has bedouins? i'm not gonna bother going down that train of thought it's a total was of my time. i'll just wait for another irrelevant comment.

reply to post by Spazzy

Try and calm down kid, you're steaming my monitor

The reason why the Yonaguni formation is considered a natural formation is because there isn't any evidence to suggest otherwise. If you use the ATS search function, you'll see why I described it as a 'dead horse.' I appreciate all this is new to you, but for others it's been flogged to death. If you discover a research paper that says otherwise, post it up.

I've read many papers that reference the geology, archaeology and cultural prehistory of the Ryuku islands. Nothing whatsoever lends credence to the claims that the formation is artificial.

if your timeframe is correct then you're saying civilization sprang up in around a few thousand years. how is this not miniscule when compared to the lifespan of the human race? how could your own words do anyting but strongly support and verify the actual point that you're trying to debate.

I'm assuming my reply to Devino upset you enough to warrant that second reply to me. Civilisation didn't 'spring up' in a few thousand years, but the expression of civilisation did. It represents the culmination of thousands of years of development, incremental changes. These changes were defined, caused, inspired and limited by environmental conditions.

The expression of civilisation began to be seen around 4000BC with the birth of City States like Uruk in Mesopotamia. Arguably, the first stirrings of what led up to Uruk began with the first stone tools some 1.2 million years earlier.

secondly, what you fail to notice is how reality works. things aren't as cut and dry and you make them seem. you paint the picture as if everyoen was sitting around in one big family doing the same things at the same times.

I was responding to Devino's suggestion that civilisations 'sprung up.' If you interpret that as 'cut and dry,' it's up to you and you can project whatever you like on what I write. History isn't cut and dried.

As for how 'reality works,' perhaps you could enlighten me? So far, your posts have been kinda hostile and lacking substance. Next time, have a moment and compose yourself...I'm sure you've got some great ideas.

reply to post by someguy420


While it's undoubtably interesting, and I like Hancock's books...his grasp of the truth is sometimes a little too lose for my tastes.

History of the ancient past is fascinating enough without making stuff up as you go. Certainly it's mysterious enough...

Edit to Add: That's what I get for watching the Birds yesterday....

I meant to write Hancock, and Hitchcock came out, instead...

[edit on 6/2/2010 by seagull]

reply to post by Kandinsky


well i think you've painted yourself into a corner now. there just isn't much else for you to say really. "expression" of civilization? i suppose that's some new term that only the cool people are privy to.

if you're referring to reading/writing, sewer systems, monarchies, standing armies, medicine, astronomy, and math then again i think you're just proving the same point that you were disputing.

feel free to have the last word with your next reply. i'm really kind of bored from trying to follow your trains of thought.

Originally posted by seagull
reply to post by someguy420

 

While it's undoubtably interesting, and I like Hancock's books...his grasp of the truth is sometimes a little too lose for my tastes.

History of the ancient past is fascinating enough without making stuff up as you go. Certainly it's mysterious enough...

Edit to Add: That's what I get for watching the Birds yesterday...

.

I meant to write Hancock, and Hitchcock came out, instead...

[edit on 6/2/2010 by seagull]

first of all, could you please make a short list of things that are made up and let us have a look at it. i don't hae any problem calling a hack a hack but unless you can at least provide one single example i don't see why you even bothe rposting.

secondly, the only good science ever conceived on the face of the planet was due to makign things up as you go along. it's called taking a chance. it's called risk.

and besides, don't sit here and tell me that you always believe the facts that science presents anyway. or even if you do believe them that you take them seriously.

do you smoke? do you drink? do you use colgate toothpaste? do you filter your drinking water? do you breathe city air? do you get enough vitamins and exercise?

why is it somehow ok to point the finger at people who discuss advanced civilizations when the majority of the population can't come to grips with scientific facts that atually have an effect on their daily lives.