Graham Hancock Presenting at the 2012 Conference

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Having sat through archeology 101, antropology and other 101's 30 years ago, most of what we learned then has been replaced by new ideas. One of the problems is that the scientists involved seem to only focus on their individual area of study. Finally, with increased access to information the knowlege is being shared across disciplines, which leads to new discovery. Remember, not that long ago blood letting was the medical treatment of choice and the world was flat. We're undergoing an explosion of knowlege (as referenced in revelations) and it would be blind ignorance not to be open to the obvious just because some guy in the twenties had a different idea. History is often tailored to what the government would like us to believe. I site Lincoln as an example. Obama can't reference him enough. He stated that blacks could never be political or social equals and planned to ship them to liberia, but that's not what you read in the text books. That's just one example. If the government knew the world would end next year, would they tell you? Of course not. They realize we would no longer comply with their demands, and this would not afford them the ability to make preperations for their own survival. The government, the world, have an agenda and a narrative that fits it. This is the motive behind their interest in controlling the internet. Or as the government would say, who are you going to believe? The government, or your own lying eyes.

reply to post by Essan


Dont patronize me man! the only way conventional archaeology can date anything is human activity in or around the place your studying! such as evidence of charcoal or pottery ect ect, they carbon date that an hay presto we think we know the date of the pyramids, o an the only evidence that says it was a kings burial chamber is Mickey Mouse Graffiti ,,

reply to post by Kandinsky

Let's take Puma Punku for example...

They are arguably the oldest, and most baffling ruins on the face of the Earth. It is hard to imagine how they did not come to be known as one of the wonders of the world like the Great Pyramid. Spectacular in its own right, the Great Pyramid is, yet it pales in comparison to the ruins of Puma Punku in Tiahuanaco, in South America.

source

We know virtually nothing about this place, yet I should think that everything that's been learned in the last hundred years or so is gospel? 200 years ago we didn't even know Antarctica existed. My how things have changed. The saddest thing is that we live in such a culture of hidden secrets and disinformation, that it seems so often when something REALLY amazing is found, it gets buried in a museum and never spoken of again... except for the "fringe".

When an ancient place or monument is discovered, the researchers begin to piece the puzzle together. Frequently you see claims being asserted that are proven false just a few short decades later. Will this happen with Graham Hancock's claims? Quite possibly. But right now, we still don't have enough pieces to say FOR SURE what the real story is. Until then, I enjoy Hancock's speculations...

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


As I said, Graham Hancock got be back interested in the subject, and I then went off and did some research of my own. Even Graham now acknowledges that some of what he proposed in FotG is wrong.

The warehouse depicted in Indiana Jones does not exist. Anymore than the lost temple, in which the Ark of the Covenant was found, exists. It was a fantasy. Though a very entertaining one,

Originally posted by astrogolf
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

Having sat through archeology 101, antropology and other 101's 30 years ago, most of what we learned then has been replaced by new ideas. One of the problems is that the scientists involved seem to only focus on their individual area of study. Finally, with increased access to information the knowlege is being shared across disciplines, which leads to new discovery.

Absolutely, and the new paradigms are proof that our picture of the past continues to change as our understanding changes.

Remember, not that long ago blood letting was the medical treatment of choice and the world was flat. We're undergoing an explosion of knowlege (as referenced in revelations) and it would be blind ignorance not to be open to the obvious just because some guy in the twenties had a different idea.

Certainly, but as we take those steps we need to be sure they are firmly grounded in what we know as fact. Intuitive leaps aren't proof of anything, but they are the basis for research models. And for every academic wanting his central thesis to be forever ensconced in that Ivory Tower, there are a host of Post Grads that want to make their mark.

I'm the first to agree that the fun is on the fringes...all that's required is that pesky element called 'evidence'.

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
reply to post by Essan

 

Dont patronize me man! the only way conventional archaeology can date anything is human activity in or around the place your studying! such as evidence of charcoal or pottery ect ect, they carbon date that an hay presto we think we know the date of the pyramids, o an the only evidence that says it was a kings burial chamber is Mickey Mouse Graffiti ,,

You might like to take a look at this Wiki page...dating methodology is more than just Carbon 14.
en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


They still cant date stone no mater what you say, its all guess work! take the ruins of Puma Punku in Tiahuanaco, in South America they havent a clue when they were Built an who the Builders were! an all the other very old stuff in south America,like Machu Picchu – perhaps the most famous ruin in the World. Conventional Archaeologists say the Inca Built it I say it was there a long time before the Inca even set eyes on it

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

They still cant date stone no mater what you say, its all guess work!

True...but quite often they can date what happened to it.

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


An more often they get it wrong!

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

An more often they get it wrong!

Do they? More often?

The videos are a nice travelogue, but who is doing the theorizing? Here's my theory...we are more apt to give space guys credit for building monumental structures in the past than we are humans. Hmmm...must'a been lasers (Couldn't have ground the surfaces flat).

Why do some folks look at the achievements of our forebears and instead of celebrating them, think that they were too stupid or primitive to have done that. It's more than vaguely racist...like the 19th century statements that the First Nations were way too primitive a people to have constructed the Mississippi Mounds.

SO....

I just watched the vid (Thank you APPLE TV for allowing this to happen on my BIGSCREEN!) and I thought it was great!!!

I totally forgot about the maps!! For those of you who are unfamiliar, Graham points out the fact that as early as the 1300's we had maps that showed Antarctica as a continent. It's on MANY old maps. Trouble is, we didn't DISCOVER Antarctica until 1818. Why is is shown on the maps?? Ice free?? He says (and I concur) that these maps must have been drawn from OLDER maps. Perhaps from a time when the civilization on this planet was high enough to MAKE accurate maps of this Earth. Perhaps from ALIENS who visited here (or settled) and had the technology to create accurate maps. My own opinion is that there was a technological civilization that pre-dates our own.

But the question BEGS... Where did those source maps come from?????????

Originally posted by ThatDGgirl
Graham points out the fact that as early as the 1300's we had maps that showed Antarctica as a continent. It's on MANY old maps. Trouble is, we didn't DISCOVER Antarctica until 1818. Why is is shown on the maps?? Ice free?? He says (and I concur) that these maps must have been drawn from OLDER maps. Perhaps from a time when the civilization on this planet was high enough to MAKE accurate maps of this Earth. Perhaps from ALIENS who visited here (or settled) and had the technology to create accurate maps. My own opinion is that there was a technological civilization that pre-dates our own.

For a discussion of this issue, and some opinions about Hancock in general, please see the following from our friends at the Hall of Maat:

Antarctic Farce Garrett Fagan examines a small piece of Graham Hancock's "evidence" from "Fingerprints of the Gods" and finds it wanting. www.hallofmaat.com...

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck


Those two vids are an example of what im saying,,that the Inca built on top of the existing buildings that were there since before the last ice age! today's archaeologist's still insist we dident get our act together as regard sowing seeds an settling down from a hunter gatherer to Farmer only 4,000 years ago,,thats crap as far as i can see because the buildings mentioned in my last couple of posts are at least 12,000 to 13,000 years old, hunter gatherers certainly didn't build them!

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE

Those two vids are an example of what im saying,,that the Inca built on top of the existing buildings that were there since before the last ice age!

What is your evidence for this assertion?

Originally posted by FatherLukeDuke

Originally posted by DCDAVECLARKE

Those two vids are an example of what im saying,,that the Inca built on top of the existing buildings that were there since before the last ice age!

What is your evidence for this assertion?

The Tackiness of the more recent stone work, which says to me the People that done it had lost the ability to reproduce the original structure ,, the original walls are in the same Ball Park as the other old Buildings iv mentioned allready...12,000 years old!

reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

Ok, I read the page... several times. They're nattering on about the age of the ice, which I did not address. What I DID ask was how did these ancient explorers come to be in POSSESSION of maps which showed, not only UNDISCOVERED Antarctica, but ICE FREE Antarctica. So if we go with current estimates that date that ice at tens or hundreds of thousands of years old, it makes the question of the origin of the maps that much more thought provoking, does it not? Because THAT would mean that either the SOURCE maps were tens or hundreds of thousands years old OR at some time in the forgotten past we had the technology to map land beneath ice... which implies sonar imaging or something of that ilk.

Now what?


Just found this which apparently gives the "lie" to the supposition that the Piri Ries map shows an ice free Antarctica. Thought I'd post it just to be fair...

Originally posted by ThatDGgirl


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)

There is no "high math" apparent in any pyramid.

Any of about half a dozen theories could easily explain the construction of the pyramids. Any one of them.

No, we haven't done it. We also haven't built a modern-day Wall of China either.

We don't need to spend that kind of money on a pyramid when we're very busy right now spending that kind of money to keep people from finding jobs!

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.

You can have your opinion, but didn't I just show you that even Hancock doesn't believe this (and for, of course, very good reason?)

Thanks for the links!

You're welcome.
Here's hoping you do some reading at them.

Harte

Originally posted by ThatDGgirl
reply to post by JohnnyCanuck

 

Ok, I read the page... several times. They're nattering on about the age of the ice, which I did not address. What I DID ask was how did these ancient explorers come to be in POSSESSION of maps which showed, not only UNDISCOVERED Antarctica, but ICE FREE Antarctica.

No ancient (or even somewhat recent) map shows an ice-free Antarctica.

If you're thinking Piri Reis, think again.

Use the search function here to find out that this map is actually only showing the coastline of South America, curved eastward to thrwart the Treaty of Torsedillas.

Several older maps show a land mass called Terra Australis (which is what they named Australia after, once it was discovered by westerners.) Terra Australis was also called Terra Australis Incognita, which is Latin for "Unknown Southern Land.

This land was postulated to exist only to "balance" the land in the northern hemisphere. They used to think there must be such a balance or the Earth would have flipped over.

The notion of Terra Australis was introduced by Aristotle. His ideas were later expanded by Ptolemy (1st century AD), who believed that the Indian Ocean was enclosed on the south by land, and that the lands of the Northern Hemisphere should be balanced by land in the south.[1] Ptolemy's maps, which became well-known in Europe during the Renaissance, did not actually depict such a continent, but they did show an Africa which had no southern oceanic boundary (and which therefore might extend all the way to the South Pole), and also raised the possibility that the Indian Ocean was entirely enclosed by land.

Source: Wiki



Harte

reply to post by DCDAVECLARKE


Personally I think they're a little older than that. The Bosnian one has a carbon dated flute in it, thats 36 000 years old, or very close, and writing in it as well. And that is interesting considering that carbon dating is flawed and its said you can double or triple the length of time given. So, over 60 000 to 108 000. There is evidence that a shift in axis took place, a rather interesting old thread here, relating to the stars and passages through the chambers and what was supposed to be pointed to cosmically. Something like a 17-18% shift in angle. That would mean the Great Pyramids survived a large cycle and are probably more than 26 000 years themselves in fact, I would guess at considerable older.

Most of dates are lost in history and time, along with the cities off the coast. Theres been many cycles.

reply to post by Unity_99

I agree I only use 12,000 as a marker! everything earlier is were its at with a lot of this all over the world, what gets me is TPTB shoot themselves in the foot on this kinda thing, its obvious to me an anyone living outside the box so to speak that everything before the so called flood is true including Giants but they cant be having that now can they!