Do you believe Graham Hancock's theories?

[eddymotto]

I read a couple of Hancock books decades ago. Very entertaining but really just a precursor to Ancient Aliens.

The playbook for guys like Hancock always include 2 things:

1. Speculative theories with minimal evidence
2. A conspiracy theory explaining why real scientists and academics don't take then seriously

the latter one is so funny. naive people who have never dealt wth academics somehow think that academics form some sort of cabal. anybody who has actually dealt with academics know that the profession is filled with people who love to argue about the most minor things and are impossible to organize in any meaningful way

 

[bandicoot]

#JusticeForDibble

 

[AstralPanda]

I had some good responses in this thread

Didn't realize at first and was gonna reply again, lol

 

[Big Nasty Edison]

More like grabbed handbook amirite?

 

[Colonel Forbin]

there are mysteries on Earth that have no explanations

there were ancient civilizations, there were ice ages, I think a lot of what he studies should be at least easy to comprehend. FFS, people from Asia were agle to get to the Americas because of ICE

 

[HOLA]

Snake oil.

I'm convinced that soothing British accent really goes a long way in bamboozling Americans. The way he says "Younger dry ass" is very elegant.

 

[HOLA]

I'm not aware of Graham Hancock promoting the idea of aliens, and in fact I've heard him denounce those ideas on numerous occasions.

In earlier books he expressed belief in the face on Mars. The Mars Mystery or something. I read it over 20 years ago. He doesn't really explicitly say "this is concrete evidence of alien civilizations," but it is very heavily implied.

Have you ever even listened to his ideas? Because I'm pretty sure you either have him mixed up with someone else or have never even listened to his ideas

@ralphc1 hanckock doesn't promote the ancient aliens theory fyi. and i have heard him denounce those ideas publicly on numerous occasions.

i dont ascribe to his theories as there are too many leaps in logic that dont necessarily follow.

 

[HOLA]

Has anyone been following the Graham Hancock / Flint Dibble back and forth?



A few months ago GH went on Rogan to debate mainstream archaeologist Flint Dibble (best name ever) and FD destroyed GH. Hancock said he felt beat up after that debate.


Highlights:




Full debate (4.5 hours):

Spoiler

But then GH comes out with this video claiming FD had lied about several figures and facts.






Then GH goes back on JRE (by himself this time) to set the record straight about FD's alleged lies.





Then FD releases this video reply about that JRE episode.










So i have no idea where we are now or who is winning currently between them..... but it's been an entertaining and interesting little nerd fight.

I lost track of it all but I saw the first debate when they were both on. DIbble chewed Hancock up and spit him out.

 

[The_Renaissance]

Not sure I believe them but I definitely find them interesting, I've read a couple of his books.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

Wait, when did beargrounds get banned?

EDIT he came out with stuff I thought was a bit out there at times but he was always willing to discuss his position on it and seemed like a good guy.

Free beargrounds!

 

[Wilmer Digreux]

Wait, when did beargrounds get banned?

Like a month or two ago i think. I never heard why.

 

[Hellowhosthat]

Like a month or two ago i think. I never heard why.

I edited the previous post to display my displeasure. I disagreed with him on a decent amount of stuff but he was a sound guy imo.

 

[Wilmer Digreux]

I edited the previous post to display my displeasure. I disagreed with him on a decent amount of stuff but he was a sound guy imo.

I agree i like him. I didn't share his views on bigfoot but those threads were still fun. He seemed like a good guy so i can't imagine why he was banned.

 

[Bacco]

I don't believe most of the shit he tries to push, but i believe he's right on say our ancient history knowledge is uncomplete and due this possibly wrong in many assumptions