Graham Hancock Presenting at the 2012 Conference

Here Graham gives a talk on the subject thats close to my Hart the mystery of life before the flood! he talks about ancient map's show land were no land is now,,he explained in plain talk how he believes the Pyramids were built 13,000 years ago an the fact that conventional archeology is flawed,, i love it an i hope you do to...

Good presentation by Graham, I recorded the audio and listened to it about a week or so ago, I do that with all his videos, can't seem to sit through the videos, most of them are duologue, would love it if they were down loadable..

Graham has been talking about the age of the Sphinx for years now in many of his talks, as much as I enjoyed this one I didn't hear anything new from him.

Thank for post this.

Youtube.com is so bogged down. The video starts and stops every couple seconds. Too bad Youtube doesn't buffer.

Just use this link and watch the video on Graham Hancock's website.

www.grahamhancock.com...

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE
It's like Hancock has had his logic removed and replaced by an extra ego. Either that or he's just into niche marketing and is happy making money from old dopes.

Ignoring the Persian and Greek historians for the sake of simplicity, let's say the study of Egypt began in the late-ish 19th Century with Flinders Petrie. That musters up about 130 years of international research into the subject of Ancient Egypt. Scholars from across the world have investigated the pyramids and drawn some reasonably different conclusions about dates and the society of Egypt. The conclusions have been based on the interpretation of the available evidence that ranges from Herodotus to standing in Giza with theodolites or exhuming the massive cemeteries for artefacts/grave goods to inform ideas of dates. Pyramid texts and various King Lists etc. Just about any new technology has been applied to the study of ancient Egypt.

The combined evidence of all these disparate people and studies has come to a consensus of dates that are substantial and have multiple, cross-referenced sources.

But hey, let's throw all that away because Hancock fancies the idea that the Giza complex looks a bit like Orion's Belt and must be thousands of years older. While we're dismissing the decades of academic study of Egypt, let's dismiss all the conventional history of human civilisation too. Why not? If they're all wrong, maybe all the astro-physicists and astrogeologists are wrong as well? Maybe Mars hasn't been dead for millions of years and those scientists are all wrong again? It was annihilated just a few thousands of years ago and led to the destruction of the world-wide civilisation that built the pyramids in the first place!

Hancock is a qualified sociologist and journalist. Compared to a 130 years of international, multi-disciplined research by thousands of qualified academics who specialise in their fields...Hancock is selling BS.

reply to post by Kandinsky


I have no time for conventional ideas about how old the Pyramids are,,I much prefer his interpretation on the history of the world! Conventional Archaeology still finds anything before the last Ice Age taboo! that in its self is enough to make me suspicious of them, there are many artifacts locked away from the public view,,now i wonder why that is!

Install internet download manager and it will download the vid for you.

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE

I'll start by saying I haven't watched the video yet, but I have read 2 of GH's books - Finger prints of the Gods and Heavens Mirror. Heavens Mirror is filled with a ton of wonderful pictures and diagrams. These books cover much more than just the Great Pryamid and other structures in Egpyt. They are about ancient structures and things around the world... easter Island.. Nazca Lines... ect

Please answer this for me - have you read any of his material? If you have, I would love to discuss his work further.

Your post makes me believe that you haven't look at any of his material... so I'm not sure why you're commenting on something you know nothing about.

Iv been following Hancock since he came on the scene....

reply to post by Wolf Eyes


(Your post makes me believe that you haven't look at any of his material... so I'm not sure why you're commenting on something you know nothing about).

And what pray tell gives you that idea?

reply to post by Kandinsky


Incredibly, I stumbled on to this this blog less than an hour after I read your post, which I must say, appears rather self-righteous to me. This gentleman put it into words much better than I possibly could, so I'd like to share it with you....

INTELLIGENTSIA SELF-DEFENCE The intelligentsia appears to be addicted to the illusion that it has a monopoly on valid analysis and understanding. In order to preserve this illusion and to protect its standing in providing interpretations of the World, the intelligentsia must limit the scope of all investigations to domains that fall within its self-established interpretational paradigms (right-left, power politics, geopolitical chess board, corporate motives, etc.) and self-established research protocols.

from this blog

There are many intelligent individuals who are "out of the box" thinkers... Robert Schlock, Andrew Collins and Christopher Dunn have all proposed different theories on the current paradigm. What in the world is wrong with new ideas? Why do you feel that challenging the current norm is NOT feasible for you? I'd like to hear different things and decide for myself, rather than have someone like you make that decision for me



And thanks OP, I'm a big fan of Hancock's. I love the way he puts things together. I just re-read Fingerprints a few months ago. It's one of my all time faves.

Originally posted by ThatDGgirl
There are many intelligent individuals who are "out of the box" thinkers... Robert Schlock, Andrew Collins and Christopher Dunn have all proposed different theories on the current paradigm. What in the world is wrong with new ideas?

Nothing at all.

The problem is that the "new ideas" from the people you mention above simply don't fit with the known facts.

New ideas are worthless if they don't explain anything.

Originally posted by ThatDGgirl
Why do you feel that challenging the current norm is NOT feasible for you? I'd like to hear different things and decide for myself, rather than have someone like you make that decision for me

Then by all means, you should do so.

Start here, would be my recommendation. Read all the other pages there as well that pertain to Hancock's inane brand of pseudohistory.

Then start at any one of these links..
You'll probably want to know about all this as well.
Catchpenny's is a must-save and must-read.

So is Doug's Archaeology Site..

Let's not forget the illustrious Mr. Paul Heinrich.

If you're an Anunakki worshiper, you need Heiser's website..

Or, you could use the search functuion here and find out for yourself how you've been lied to in order to part you and your money.

And thanks OP, I'm a big fan of Hancock's. I love the way he puts things together. I just re-read Fingerprints a few months ago. It's one of my all time faves.

The guy can write, but even Hankook has acknowledged that his research for that awful piece of trash was "poor." Find out why right here at ATS.

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
Here Graham gives a talk on the subject thats close to my Hart the mystery of life before the flood! he talks about ancient map's show land were no land is now,,he explained in plain talk how he believes the Pyramids were built 13,000 years ago an the fact that conventional archeology is flawed,

I won't watch this grifter work the crowd, but I know for a fact that Hancock doesn't believe the above bolded line of hooey.
Concerning the age of the Great Pyramid:

However, in December 1997, Dr Zahi Hawass allowed me to spend an entire day exploring these chambers. There were no restrictions on where I looked and I had ample time to examine the hieroglyphs closely, under powerful lights. Cracks in some of the joints reveal hieroglyphs set far back into the masonry. No 'forger' could possibly have reached in there after the blocks had been set in place - blocks, I should add, that weigh tens of tons each and that are immovably interlinked with one another. The only reasonable conclusion is the one which orthodox Egyptologists have already long held - namely that the hieroglyphs are genuine Old Kingdom graffiti and that they were daubed on the blocks before construction began.

Quoted from: Graham Hancock's website

Sorry about that bubble.

Harte

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


thank you very much for posting this. i have read several of his books more than once. i think i may start reading one of his again soon. i have not read one of his books in over a year now.

thanks again for sharing this DCDAVE,
et

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
reply to post by Kandinsky

 

I have no time for conventional ideas about how old the Pyramids are,,I much prefer his interpretation on the history of the world! Conventional Archaeology still finds anything before the last Ice Age taboo! that in its self is enough to make me suspicious of them, there are many artifacts locked away from the public view,,now i wonder why that is!

Preferences are just fine as opinions go...but we would certainly exist in an idiocracy of our own making if we let them set the gold standard. Life is indeed simpler when we remove the burden of proof. As to the 'ice age taboo', that is unfolding in archaeology as we speak. The paradigms are shifting and exciting new concepts are unfolding...from scientists...with the squelch set high on the old Bravo Sierra detector. Who can actually back up their conjecture with well-reasoned arguments as opposed to building a house upon poo.

Do yourself a favour and take Archaeology 101. It's much more dramatic than anything Hancock can offer.

reply to post by Harte


You didn't pop my bubble. But you DID give me lots of OTHER to factor in. I have been reading both new and old paradigm authors for more than 20 years. I know what resonates to me. I also know that TPTB are very jealous about 'old truths' getting into the wrong hands (ie: the public). So I'll continue my path. I'm not an eloquent writer so I won't go on and on about what I've read in the past (as if I could remember all of it!).

For me, the biggest thing that does NOT make sense is the simple fact that even today we cannot recreate the Pyramids in Giza to scale. We can't even figure out how they did it! (not to mention all the high math that was part of their construction) Oh, sure, there are theories, but none can be proven out on the big scale. I find it very difficult to believe that we have lost THAT much knowledge since circa 2500 BC. But if they're older, like Hancock thinks, and we throw in a size large cataclysm, THAT seems to have more of a ring of truth, IMHO.

There is alot of stuff on this planet that is staggeringly ancient. And whether you believe his (Hancock's) theories from Fingerprints or not, it still doesn't change the fact that we don't know much at all about the buildings OR the builders.

Thanks for the links!

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


All they would have to do is bring the History Channel in to one of the Warehouses an let them (if there honest) look around an make a truthful Documentary about all the stuff hidden away,, but I might aswell Dream here as in Bed.......

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

All they would have to do is bring the History Channel in to one of the Warehouses an let them (if there honest) look around an make a truthful Documentary about all the stuff hidden away,, but I might aswell Dream here as in Bed.......

The closing scenes of an Indiana Jones epic not withstanding...which warehouses and just what would you expect to find there?

I'd like to add that archaeologists are generally very happy to talk about their fields of study. I would heartily recommend to those interested that they make an appointment with an Egyptologist at their local university, and have a chat about Hancock, the pyramids, and anything else on their minds. You might find yourself talking, as I did, to someone who has excavated sites immediately associated with the structures, half-cut blocks with the tools still scattered about, details that Hancock et al are not in a hurry to talk about. After all, Deny Ignorance is this forum's credo, right?

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


You mean you haven't heard about the Warehouses full of Artifacts from way before the flood which the Conventional Scollars wont touch because it would put an end to all the nonsense they've been putting out about Mans real history! if you belive that Man only got it together about 4,000 years ago! well im surprised! I belive the Pyramids were there allready a few Thousand years before the moderan Egyptian's starting 4,000 years ago, PS the Pyramids were never intended as a Buiral place for a King

reply to post by ThatDGgirl

And whether you believe his (Hancock's) theories from Fingerprints or not, it still doesn't change the fact that we don't know much at all about the buildings OR the builders.

You'd have to define 'much' for this statement to be meaningful.

We know a huge amount about the builders...injuries, beliefs, families, diet, private lives, politics, customs, skills etc.

We also know a huge amount about the construction techniques. There's plenty we might never know, but that's the nature of the academic study of ancient history. It's what makes it all so interesting.

I'd like to meet Graham. He got me back interested in the whole ancient civilisations stuff with his book Fingerprints of the Gods, which in turn led to me do my own research and realising how wrong he was ....

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


Indeed! Has no-one seen Indiana Jones?

It was in a film. It must be true!