Setting History Free. interview with Graham Hancock

reply to post by spacevisitor
Hiya Space, I believe there are so-far undiscovered settlements and perhaps towns that have been submerged over time. I also believe we are sitting on a lot of history that might never see the light of day. Our oldest population centres have been built on, layer after layer, for thousands of years. Every now and then some new construction project shines a little light on them...

Having said that, I also believe 'civilisation' had it's first expression near 5000BC. The evidence for this is overwhelming in my opinion. As such, I 'rule out' the *probability* of their being lost civilisations that precede 5000BC. I accept the *possibility.*

New findings are uncovered every week somewhere. These findings add weight to the consensus that civilisation began around 5000BC.

The discoveries of coastal remains below the seas are extensions of cultures and civilisations we already recognise. So far, they haven't provided indication nor evidence of unknown or prehistoric civilisation.

Michio Kaku and Hawkings are arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin when we don't know if there is a pin. They are speculating, hypothesising without physical evidence. I very much enjoy their thoughts on the subject. Nevertheless, when scholars and scientists agree (generally) about the timelines of human history, they do so from physical evidence.

I wasn't saying I can 'argue the hell' out of you. I meant I can get into an argument with ATS members without holding a grudge or carrying it over to other threads. Your post in the Haines thread hasn't asked me a question that I can see. It's a rare point of agreement between us

Take it easy and we can butt heads on other threads in a friendly manner

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Take it easy and we can butt heads on other threads in a friendly manner

As long as we don’t butt each other unconscious I have no problem with that.

reply to post by spacevisitor
No problems

I just noticed I u2ud you a link to the Haines interview way back in July last year. Surprised the heck out of me! I'm gonna u2u a pretty good link again...stand by.

reply to post by polarwarrior


I do not think these are natural formations; however they do not appear to be steps either. They appear to be a quarry to me, with someone cutting out big pieces of rock for uses of building. The idea should be to find where those building blocks are as we have another mystery.

reply to post by Kandinsky


you wont' carry it over to other threads? i guess this doesn't count then does it?

proof that you're a liar

kandinsky you've really made quite a spectacle of yourself here. great display of your "character". and thanks for the new strawman with your expressions of civilization speech.

the underwater structure could be aything. we have no clue what it is. neither do you so quit pretending.

[edit on 3-6-2010 by Spazzy]

I'm watching this now. I have never seen David Wilcox before but he is an idiot.

He does not know a lot of the basic history of common things Graham is talking about. History I was taught as a child !

He strongly give me the impression that he is playing a game, he is trying to be something he is not.

He is very much a follower and seems to lack much intelligence and understanding.

How this guy ever got a following is way beyond me.

Wow...this is a great interview...i love it!
I love their theory's and it really does make more sense to me than the conventional story...

Oh and Spazzy, I'm with you brother...you're totally correct in your logic and arguments...

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Actually in previous work by wilcock he most certainly does know most of what he pretends to not know in the interview, im assuming its just him playing the role to ask basic audience questions, like somtimes he goes "oh really" in a tone as though he didnt know even though he's written and lectured about it before. But there were some basic things in there he should have known about, if it was his area of speciality.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


i'm glad someone else said something. i really thought this guy was a fake (obviously). but more importantly he's boring. usually with this kinda hting even if it turns out to be bunk they give you a good ride for yuor time. he's pretty so-so.

i actually stomached about an hour of his operation pegasus or whatever those guys call themselves interview. he's just not worth a dime sorry.

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

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

One of my first replies on this site so this may be a bit of a newbie question...
I understand the point made that we can lift/move blocks of massive size these days but if it were possible for these ancient cultures to move them from the quarry and place them "on site" then surely the question we should ask is how did they build these huge cranes? and where are the remains? Surely if they were built then wood is not exactly the best material for this and that a metal construction should have been made. imo manpower/slavepower can only get you so far.

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.

Brilliant video... thanks for posting 1 degree every 72 years
amazing structures we have on the Earth, a world wide system of "as above so below" the heavens mirror idea is so prevalent in the past, I wish more was done to investigate the underwater structures, we could have an amazing discovery in Cuba but incredibly they canceled the mission, arguing that its members are more interested in the project concession to the Chinese for oil.

reply to post by Kandinsky

Originally posted by Kandinsky
Having said that, I also believe 'civilisation' had it's first expression near 5000BC. The evidence for this is overwhelming in my opinion. As such, I 'rule out' the *probability* of their being lost civilisations that precede 5000BC. I accept the *possibility.*

By "first expression" I assume you mean recorded artifacts and any culture that remains from these "civilizations". The problem is that there is a boundary of time that these artifacts and culture, or "expression of these civilizations"- as it were, does not predate very well if at all. We can conclude that this is because there were no civilizations before this time due to the lack of evidence pertaining to this thought. However the lack of evidence should not be automatically considered evidence in itself.

I believe there exists evidence of complicated knowledge that owns its origin to a time that predates these civilizations from 5000 BC. This knowledge*, some we still use today, is sophisticated to such a degree that it cannot be contributed to the idle thoughts of wandering nomads. It could only have come from a civilization thriving in culture yet herein lies the problem. There is no physical evidence of these supposed earlier civilizations. Nothing exists to prove that they were real, except for the stories and evolving cultural expressions that are riddled of such civilizations.

*This knowledge I am referring to is the Geometrical measure of our spacial/time coordinate system. The understanding of how to properly measure space and time as just one example.

Is it possible that the stories of catastrophic events recorded in the culture and myths of ancient civilizations be the cause for the lack of any physical evidence, biblical flood myth for example?

Personally I find it odd to be on either side of this fence. Is the lack of evidence proof that these civilizations did not exist and therefore supporting cultural rituals and myths are completely fictitious?
Or is this missing evidence showing that these myths and corroborating cultural beliefs were telling of real catastrophic historical events?
We can follow either extreme from this line yet we must always keep in mind one very obvious fact, We really don't know.
I think it is very important to accept the questions from both sides of this argument and then we can use skepticism as a properly functioning tool to find the truth.

Now if you find some agreement with me here and concede the possibility does exist that there were ancient civilizations predating our 5000 BC time boundary. And that these civilizations were wiped out by some global catastrophe that has been recorded in cultures and myths that we know of. Then there is no question that we must seriously investigate these claims.

reply to post by Devino
Hello Devino

By 'expression of civilisation' I was pointing to the rise of City States. Civilisation is much more than simple culture...it's government, stratified hierarchies, trade, currency, taxes and law. It involves building projects, roads, sanitation, access to water. It also means leaving marks on the landscape and lots and lots of waste, debris and potsherds!

Until something turns up that predates the ~5000BC period, I'm going to continue to believe that there were no ancient civilisations before then.

As for sitting on either side of the fence? We all do it, it's part of being reasonable and shows mental flexibility. I've no doubt at all that flood myths are born from actual events. As humans settled, they nearly always choose rivers, river deltas, coastal areas with fresh water access. These are fertile, provide a surplus of food and water and lead to larger settlements. Where better for floods and catastrophes?! Hurricanes, tsunamis and earthquakes still happen today and kill thousands a year.

The shared features of the myths fascinate me, in particular the safe haven from which to send a bird out that returns with a leaf. Here's a pdf I linked in post about flood myths...you'll like it...Flood Myths of the World

Just a bump for those that may have missed this video.

I for one had missed them and am only 20 mins into them...dont think Ill be taking a brake, will watch it till the end.

Loving the fact that David is humble enough to interview another great man and to give Graham so much room to share his ideas.

A side to David I have missed for a while. Great to see this side of him is still in there...somewhere.

Edit to add...my own thoughts on this 'clock' of the great year.

If we go back to 12,500 years to when Egypt seems to of built a reflection of the sky in 10,500 BC.....then we are HALF WAY around the clock. If you look at a zodiac wheel (a true solar wheel and not tropical or sidereal) and if you look at the oppostie of Leo....that is what we are getting ready to approach. In about another 500 years, we will be entering the age of Aquarius...we will be at the HALF WAY POINT.

By no way does this point to a end in the horizon....to me it points to all of us that it is time to find our second wind...its time to restrap our laces, its time to take everything we have learned in history of our experiences and trial and errors and learn from the.

If the great year actually last 26000 years...then after 13,000 years, we have only reached half way through the great year.

This is clearly, to me, a time for choice. To weigh and sift what we have learned, and make a choice what you are living for. Do you live a life for self, or do you live a life for the ALL, yourself and all others, ONE in Spirit.

I think the next cycle on the clock is about us learning we are a unit, a unite consciousness, and that our very thoughts are creating.

Edit to add again...what I like about Graham is that he is careful to not use modern names to identify places and things we are unsure about. He remains a skeptic, and can see there is things that are mysterious, but does not say that without a doubt he knows exactly what was or is going on.


[edit on 29-6-2010 by LeoVirgo]

[edit on 29-6-2010 by LeoVirgo]

[edit on 29-6-2010 by LeoVirgo]

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Im going to much agree with Polarwarrior here...

David defiantly knew most of this stuff already, he was respectfully giving Hancock the space to explain things in his own view and manner. Within just a few mins into it I was aware that David was going to play dumb. This is why my above comment says....I miss this part of David, this humbleness, to allow others to show their side of the story.

When David does his own 'conferences' he displays information as a matter of factly. I saw a huge change in his nature of the last couple of years. I dont think it was a negative thing...but when you start doing work and trying to sell it, as well as have deadlines for projects....this kind of thing will happen.

I really really enjoyed seeing David sit back and not admit to his own 'matter of factly' opinions. I think it is going to do his inner nature much good.

I hope that David is not just dong this to get in with the good names. I hope his means are honest and sincere with getting a interview with Graham and not just getting a 'name' with Graham.

They both have very different takes on some of the stuff discussed, and if you know them both, you can tell when Graham is aware that he is speaking of something that David has a different take on. David, in return, continued to pay respect to Graham, allowing him to put forth his own opinions with out putting forth his own spin on it all. I also think that Graham was well aware David knew about all of this stuff...but they both played the game to allow the interview shine on Graham, which was nice, impo.

Sorry for all the edits...I came back and added to this many times during my watching of the videos.

I think this was one of the greatest things David has been a part of in some time now. I think he needs to join up with others and I think he needs to talk less about his past incarnations and things that we have no evidence to follow up on. I feel that he is a great spiritual guide and just needs to focus less on his past self and more on the future of mankind as a whole. I hope that after 2012....many of these great lights will start to be a part in making this world what it can be. I dont agree on teaching people to seek leaving 'Earth' in ways of ascension (new age stuff) or salvation (religious stuff).

I did remove some things from my posts that I felt was just not needed, my thinking out loud sometimes needs to be left unsaid.

But now...we see Graham himself taking a new route....with the 'supernatural' which really surprises me and mabey this is what drew him and David together for this interview. Mabey they both can meet in the middle somewhere....and bring a light to the fact that there are defiantly mysteries beyond this life of flesh.

Really loved this interview for many reasons.
My best to all
LV


[edit on 29-6-2010 by LeoVirgo]

[edit on 29-6-2010 by LeoVirgo]

I really think mainstream education is making a BIG MISTAKE in not taking Graham Hancock seriously!
www.youtube.com... YjwrmvOzhqJ61co0kUMWQMDZmc4ARVFGT0xp7NBa7xGyzab9ookMefluX3sqyxOMo9Q7nZFD4KiN9F-mBu3ZzcjJADdhlqp6CM_RcS6bxGaeOMaJHsgpiFo7eNoqBYsX5Bz6-zkoSQiB0MMLYmq0gE kK0CWzkNWa9uyx3idUnmQSvbNotZ4H_sc3Mv2AlfWChRHBMvbmUTp3zsIsByk60rdlVTpMzCXJ7ybKdiz5oGvnMG2WOjoYdkllUZ0yHyo2udo3BXCxqDNKXJMU_kMH86PnNWf2f-UTM5f_XnroK54v Q0-xNVI84CNG9ZB_wIXECCSjxHbovYzblzXB4K-hRbMgzSG-w4-MyT01CNWt76SRTm4O6shOoV832xQMud4bNf2XZCioSC1LuhiO4y895NFyep-_L7sDMyuTH8WPIRA2aVMvJ400x4JhZRHc9r2slK E92QzdoYk5vgOE2qpn30lEtogObd46whJQ9PMsmWKrdLfec79dwiBytpXNORKxCXMeJ570cQNG-fmOQVjuw

reply to post by thetiler


What factual information would you like to add to the curriculum?

reply to post by someguy420


Thank you, I really look forward to watching this. Wilcock's book, The Source Field Investigations was one of the best I've read, and Hancock is remarkable researcher himself.