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.

 

Graham Hancock Answering Ancient Mysteries

page: 1
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 09:42 AM
link   
Graham Hancock discusses his views on the following topics:

1 - Precession of the equinoxes
2 - Bringers of wisdom from the Heavens
3 - Monuments aligning to 10,500BC
4 - What happened in 10,500BC?
5 - The Mystery of the Pyramids
6 - The Sarcophagus
7 - Dating Giza
8 - Hidden Halls of Records
9 - Structures on Mars
10 - Cataclysm of Mars
11 - A species with amnesia
12 - Where is the Lost Civilization?

1H10M. Long but interesting






posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 10:04 AM
link   
reply to post by Glargod
 


As someone who has studied ancient mysteries for a long time now - I remember when Chariots of the Gods by Von Daniken was first released - I have to say that I do not trust Graham Hancock.

Why? Well one reason is a book I read a while back by the name of The Stargate Conspiracy, by Picknet and Prince in which the two authors level some pretty odd charges towards Graham, one of which was his contradicting himself from time to time. I cannot remember all the other charges exactly - it has been a while since I was separated from that book unfortunately - but it didn't look good for Graham and it left an impression on me.

Another reason is that I have never been able to finish a Graham Hancock book. Now I have read some of the most dry technical manuals there are (Try to get through the Sonet book on Fiber Optics, a real sleeping pill) but somehow I can't get through one of Graham's. Read most of Sitchin's books too, and do not completely trust him either, but that has to do with his being the only expert on dead languages who had published at the time that I read his stuff.

And Graham has so many books out on so many different facets of ancient mysteries, somehow I just do not see him having enough time in life to do all this research and all this writing. To my mind Graham is a historical hack who has stood upon the research of others to publish more prolifically than almost anyone else.

Sorry, just my take on Graham, for what it is worth.
edit on 14-1-2012 by Ittabena because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:15 AM
link   
I represent the same theory just like Graham, but i don't get one thing. How come you say that you've laid down in the holly Sarcophagus (00:37:20) and you still have the need to wear a suit!



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 11:19 AM
link   
I like Mr. Hancock he seems like a reasonable man when contemplating our past and considering the Pyramids ...I think his experience with Ayawaska might of had or has a influence he would have been better off without . other than that I like the info he suggest might be or could be and the people he brings into his quest... thanks op ...peace



posted on Jan, 14 2012 @ 09:36 PM
link   
I'll say this for him, he did back down from his claim that the Great Pyramid was constructed prior to the Egyptian's arrival (around 10,500 BC was his previous claim.)

This after Zahi let him into the relieving chambers in the G.P., where Hackock saw with his own eyes (and posted about later at his website) the irrefutable evidence that Egyptians constructed the thing.

Recently I learned he even admitted his errors in a new edition of "Fingerprints of the Gods," in the preface.

Wouldn't expect such upright behavior from the other hacks - like VonDaniken and Sitchin.

Harte



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte
I'll say this for him, he did back down from his claim that the Great Pyramid was constructed prior to the Egyptian's arrival (around 10,500 BC was his previous claim.)

This after Zahi let him into the relieving chambers in the G.P., where Hackock saw with his own eyes (and posted about later at his website) the irrefutable evidence that Egyptians constructed the thing.

Recently I learned he even admitted his errors in a new edition of "Fingerprints of the Gods," in the preface.

Wouldn't expect such upright behavior from the other hacks - like VonDaniken and Sitchin.

Harte


Hey Harte

Didn't Hancock later qualify that acceptance of the grafitti??



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Hanslune

Hey Harte

Didn't Hancock later qualify that acceptance of the grafitti??


I don't know, Hans. Not that I ever heard of but it's not like I go out of my way to read Hancock's bull.

I know it's what caused him and Bauvel to claim that Giza was built according to a plan that originated in 10,000 B.C.E.

Hey, that's better than his earlier claim that the structure itself is that old.

Anyway, if he made some qualification, I'd like to know.

You got a quote or anything?

Harte



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Harte
 


His closeness with Zahwi is really the main reason I do not trust him. Zahwi won't let anyone else in to look at anything. Why? And why Hancock? Several red flags pop up from this for me.



posted on Jan, 16 2012 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harte

You got a quote or anything?

Harte


Nope, sorry I cannot find anything on it....dang .....as I slip out the side door, : [



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 07:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by Ittabena
reply to post by Harte
 


His closeness with Zahwi is really the main reason I do not trust him. Zahwi won't let anyone else in to look at anything. Why? And why Hancock? Several red flags pop up from this for me.


Do you have any evidence at all that might suupport the above bolded statement, or do you simply enjoy making wild and ridiculous claims?

If the latter, why?

Harte



posted on Jan, 17 2012 @ 08:28 AM
link   
Thanks OP.

Really enjoyed the video the speaker made some important points especially the sensory deprivation and his refusal to accept hallucinations. Great stuff.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 01:41 PM
link   
You do know the "masons marks" inside of the relief chambers are themselves questionable right?
You do know they were conveniantly discovered just in time to prevent their discoverer from having to go home due to lack of funds RIGHT?

Mighty good timing I would say.



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 02:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dragoon01
You do know the "masons marks" inside of the relief chambers are themselves questionable right?
You do know they were conveniantly discovered just in time to prevent their discoverer from having to go home due to lack of funds RIGHT?

Mighty good timing I would say.


The above is simply not true.

Graffiti in the GP shows Khufu's name in a form that was not even known at the time of the discovery.

The glyphs I'm talking about here for Khufu's name were only confirmed years later, when the same spelling was found elsewhere.

Also, it is plain to see that the graffiti extends between the megaliths, in areas too small to reach except during a time before they were stacked together.

This is definitive evidence for the Egyptians building the GP.

If you wish to hold some other opinion, well, you have the right to be insane if you want.

Harte



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dragoon01
You do know the "masons marks" inside of the relief chambers are themselves questionable right?
You do know they were conveniantly discovered just in time to prevent their discoverer from having to go home due to lack of funds RIGHT?


Sitchin needed a reason to dismiss the evidence for the Giza pyramids being built but by the Egyptians as tombs - as he needed them to be built by the Annunaki as markers for spaceships - so he made up the charge of forgery against Vyse.

Here is a good summary of the facts involved:

Sitchin claim of forgery
edit on 18/1/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 18 2012 @ 04:27 PM
link   
I read all his books, they are worth the read....



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 05:55 AM
link   
I have a really really really strong gut feeling Hancock is a disinfo agent...

And I think he gives away the REAL purpose of the Giza pyramids in this video - just after the 29 minute mark. He says the King's chamber is used for somekind of "transmutation" of the soul...

www.youtube.com...

What is the secret of great disinformation - mix truth with lies.

The purpose of the great pyramid was for transmutation.. but not of our souls - it was for transmuting elements... the only things I can figure they would transmute would be either plutonium or possibly it was the element 115 Bob Lazar claimed was only possible to make in some exotic environment not of this Earth.

- if you study the construction of the great pyramid you find that it is a giant particle accelerator.
- hydrogen was produced in the queen's chamber
- particles were fired from there and reflected up through the :grand gallery
-they went through the stones that comprised the bulk of the pyramid and struck the granite stones stacked above the king's chamber
-the granite stones stacked above the king's chamber had a high content of quartz which is piezoelectric
-when vibrated the quartz produces electricity
-this electricity is sealed isnide the granite.. which produces a electrogravitic effect
-the electrogravitic effect is used to transmute the elements put into the sarcophagus in the kings chamber
-this is alos why the inside of the sarcophagus is made so perfectly and the outside isn't. This is necessary for nuclear material to prevent it from going critical
-this is also what happend to the sarcophagus.. it melted down which is why the room appears charred and why the sarcophagus melted in one corner
-there were aslo other large "sarcophagus" used for storing the nuclear material in other locations near Giza.. they also had the perfectly crafted inner surfaces like the sarcophagus in the king's chamber

-there were grooves worn into the stones up the grand gallery to the King's chambers where somekind of cart went back and forth up and down hauling something over and over again... If this was for transmuting souls what would be hauled up there?

Now.. what would you use this material for? I suspect there was the natural catastrophe that required the ancient civilization here to use this material to leave the planet. Where did they go? Orion maybe? Maybe several places to ensure survival?


edit on 19-1-2012 by 8311-XHT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:24 PM
link   
Sitchin is not my source for the questioning of the validity of the masons marks. I have not read the book in which you say it appears.
I am not a believer of Sitcins positions. I myself do not prescribe to the Aliens built the pyramids idea. I dont doubt that people built them but I have no doubt it was not for a tomb.

My questioning of the validity of the marks was based on reading from other sources that Vyse had forged them. That may be in question if they do indeed extend into some area that could not be reached in his time.

A simple search however revelas other issues with the marks and indeed your links themslves indicate multiple "names" on the blocks. This idea that the multiple names are for work gangs is flimsy. Consider that the names of the king were sacred and carried power. Why would they be slapdashed all over the blocks just to tell a group of workmen which block to move or set? They appear in no other place in the pyramid that is supposed to be his eternal resting place except scrawled on blocks that no one would ever see? The link of "Khufu" to the name of a king is flimsy in my opinion.

This is my biggest issue with the Egyptologists. They pull stuff out of the ground and assign a context to it. It does not matter that the context is completly based on prior contexts that they have put into place. They build their stories on the foundations of other stories. I understand why they lash out at fringe ideas but its not all about aliens. Most "fringe" proponents are just offering other explinations that fit the evidence just as well as what is accepted as fact. Its only because they are outside of the fence built by accepted groups that it appears so "fringe".



posted on Jan, 19 2012 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dragoon01



My questioning of the validity of the marks was based on reading from other sources that Vyse had forged them. That may be in question if they do indeed extend into some area that could not be reached in his time.


Sitchin invented the claim others have jumped on the band wagon as it were


A simple search however revelas other issues with the marks and indeed your links themslves indicate multiple "names" on the blocks. This idea that the multiple names are for work gangs is flimsy. Consider that the names of the king were sacred and carried power. Why would they be slapdashed all over the blocks just to tell a group of workmen which block to move or set?


Why would this be odd for workmen 4,500 years ago? They probably did so to ID which stones came from them as some scribe may have been recording the 'production' or as modern men put messages and grafitti on most everything. It may also have acted as 'luck'.


They appear in no other place in the pyramid that is supposed to be his eternal resting place except scrawled on blocks that no one would ever see?


Because all other areas have been exposed to outside interference, weather and 'finishing', Goyon and Grinsell recorded marks outside that area and the cameras in the robots in the shaft have seen similar red ochre markings.



The link of "Khufu" to the name of a king is flimsy in my opinion.


In your opinion


This is my biggest issue with the Egyptologists. They pull stuff out of the ground and assign a context to it. It does not matter that the context is completly based on prior contexts that they have put into place. They build their stories on the foundations of other stories.


What exactly would you LIKE them to do then?


I understand why they lash out at fringe ideas but its not all about aliens. Most "fringe" proponents are just offering other explinations that fit the evidence just as well as what is accepted as fact. Its only because they are outside of the fence built by accepted groups that it appears so "fringe".


There is concensus, alternative, fringe, fantasy, and sheer lunacy

Concensus is based on what the majority of the specialists believe and agree on based on the accepted facts

Alternative is based on what a minority of the specialists (and others) believe and agree (rarely) on the accepted facts - but have a different idea what they mean

Fringe as above but the facts are either ignored or stuff is made up

Fantasy, facts pretty much ignored and made up stuff predominates

Sheer Lunacy an excess of Fantasy!
edit on 19/1/12 by Hanslune because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Lets narrow something here.

The masons marks to my understanding are present in other parts of the pyramid. No one discounts this. What is questioned is the specific marks that bear the royal names. I did some more reading on this and it does indeed appear that Sitchin is the source for the modern questioning of these marks. I did not read that in his work but in other sources so I did not make that connection.
However, and possibly you can answer this for me, do the specific marks that bear the royal names extend into areas that could not be reached? If there were indeed marks in the relieving chambers when Vyze entered them that still does not exclude the possibility that he did not fake the actual "kings name".
Now that may or may not have been the case but I did read a different account of something related to Vyze that has bearing. Apparently his team discovered an iron pin several days before he entered the relief chamber. Now this pin was positioned between two stones that were blown open with gunpowder. Supposedly it was not possible for it to have been placed there after construction. Several tests were conducted on this iron peice in the late 80's and it appears to have had micro traces of gold on it. Its still apparently questioned as being a legitiment find in corelation with the GP. So my question is if this pin is questionable then how can there be no question about Vyzes other find and why was it iron?
This topic has me interested and I intend to do further reading on the matter but given other information that I found I still think that the attribution of the GP to a king named "Khufu" is questionable.

Again just for the record I am a follower of the idea that the site and its monuments predate the Egyptians and that they simply occupied it and improved it, building temples and structurs on their own but as additions to an already established site.

As far as what I would like Egyptologists to do? I would like them to dig things up and call things what they are and no more. If you dig up a fancy looking bowl dont imediatly profess it to be a funeral or cult object, call it a fancy bowl and move on. I would rather they admit they do not know what a site was than to have them build a context based on assumptions.



posted on Jan, 20 2012 @ 10:16 AM
link   
If you want some facts about the graffiti in the relieving chambers, and Sitchin's blatantly false claims about it, you could do worse than to read about it on Frank Doernenburg's website.

Harte




top topics



 
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join