Graham Hancock and the ancient civilization theory

[Happy Man]

I would also caveat that there is a burgeoning amount of evidence that suggests there was a cosmic impact 12.8k BUT we don't know why, in 11,600k years ago, the planet warmed EVEN MORE RAPIDLY than it had cooled 1200 years prior when the impact was supposed to have happened.

It's a scientific fact that at 11.6k years ago, the geological end of the Younger Dryas, global temperatures rose 18 degree F in as little as 10 years time...perhaps less, 10 years is the minimum number they can pinpoint the temp rise down to. It could have been a year...or less. Think about that in the context of current global warming. What we are seeing on the planet today IS NOTHING compared to what happened at the end of the Younger Dryas.

Rogan has a dude on who talked about during the cataclysm, it was literally raining lightning fire. That killed everything. Imagine a super strong downpour.....but it being electrical fire.

Only those who could made it to caves survived.

I think it’s his podcast with Robert schoch.

A huge solar flare hit back then.

 

[VivaRevolution]

The accumulation of knowledge is very different. The romans are not the pinnacle of known history either, we just know more about them than old kingdom Egypt, who was seemingly doing vastly more difficult things on vastly different scales...many of the things they were doing are puzzling with our modern understanding, which is why we resort to things like "they had a lot of time on their hands" as a lazy excuse to explain the overwhelming architectural achievements they were able to complete.

I just mean that life in 1710 Europe, wasn't very different from life in 1000 BC, if you lived in Rome.

So saying 18th century technology is a bit misleading. It's all basically the post bronze era, until the industrial revolution.

 

[andnowweknow]

Doesn't he basically argue that the warming was likely due to the strike?

the argument is that the strike occurred in 12.8k yep (the onset of the Younger Dryas), and that it was a multiple impact event that largely hit the Laurentide, cordilleran (North America) and fenoskandian (Europe) icesheets instantly flash boiling trillions of cubit feet of ice and throwing huge amounts of mud and dirt into the atmosphere (IE, blocking out the sun essentially).

What I am referring to is the event that ended the Younger dryas, 11.6k years ago. Which warmed the planet more than the event that started the Younger Dryas had cooled it 1200 years earlier. It was one catastrophe in 12.8k years ago, bookended by another (much less understood at this point) catastrophe, 11.6k years ago...

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

I can only tell you what Hancock thinks, and he basis this level conservatively on how he feels the world was mapped in pre history...which is pretty convincing that they did. He says at least 18th century level technology, perhaps 19th.

That guess is ignoring ancient constructions which may or may not go back (or be a legacy of knowledge of) to previous civilizations, and have been misidentified. He (nor I) believe the pyramids in Egypt for example go back further than modern dating of Old Kingdom Egypt (5.5k years bp)...but stuff like the Oserion, which is unusually advanced in it's construction methods might go back further.

That is a pretty bold claim, technology like the steam engine, the telegraph, the light bulb, the internal combustion engine would need to be present. That would leave a pretty large footprint and one that I believe would be obvious. There are vast areas of land that are underwater now so perhaps we will find more evidence in the future.

 

[VivaRevolution]

the argument is that the strike occurred in 12.8k yep (the onset of the Younger Dryas), and that it was a multiple impact event that largely hit the Laurentide, cordilleran (North America) and fenoskandian (Europe) icesheets instantly flash boiling trillions of cubit feet of ice and throwing huge amounts of mud and dirt into the atmosphere (IE, blocking out the sun essentially).

What I am referring to is the event that ended the Younger dryas, 11.6k years ago. Which warmed the planet more than the event that started the Younger Dryas had cooled it 1200 years earlier. It was one catastrophe in 12.8k years ago, bookended by another (much less understood at this point) catastrophe, 11.6k years ago...

I Ninja edited on you.

Am I wrong in the idea that when the debris cleared enough, that the remaining debris acted as a greenhouse gas trapping the heat?

Now that I think about it, that sounds absurd. 1200 years for debris to settle is too much

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

I would be very interested to hear @TheComebackKid take on this.

Yup, @TheComebackKid GTFIH!!

 

[Senzo Tanaka]

Hancock's problem is that he wants it to be true. He has a theory and then he makes evidence fit his theory which is not how science should work.

I think civilization is likely much older than we think but when you get into advanced civilizations that were wiped out, you need hard evidence for that. When you find ancient ruins that are mind blogging on how they were built, it doesn't necessarily mean that you had this ancient super race of people that died off. You simply had people that understood physics, leverage and engineering better than we did and mastered natural science. Meanwhile, modern humans view everything through the guise of machines, computers and technology and think it's impossible otherwise.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

_______________________________

So I recommend watching the last video, over the others.

The pictures of scale of this event is what moved me on this.

Here is the theory for those unaware.

A meteor strike happened about 12,800 years ago. This wiped human civilization off the map. This is where the flood stories come from.

For those that remember my thread on the 40,000 year old Denisovan bracelet with fixed drilling technology, it is discussed in the top video.

I am interested in seeing a debunk of this, but I will note, I am no longer open to the Clovis first theory. I believe that has been completely debunked.

Discuss..........

Is this a serious topic? Whithout watching the vids; the guy gets high to come up with his theories and the BBC already debunked his ideas once.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Is this a serious topic? Whithout watching the vids; the guy gets high to come up with his theories and the BBC already debunked his ideas once.

Sounds like a personal attack not based on his positions, which makes me more likely to believe him.

 

[andnowweknow]

That is a pretty bold claim, technology like the steam engine, the telegraph, the light bulb, the internal combustion engine would need to be present. That would leave a pretty large footprint and one that I believe would be obvious. There are vast areas of land that are underwater now so perhaps we will find more evidence in the future.

Anything wood or metal is basically go e in 1000 years...or reused by later people. Your argument that we should see signs of it is both a product of not understanding the process by which materials degrade along with general misconceptions about sites we know of today that have not been attributed properly.

 

[Social Distance Warrior]

Thanks for the links VivA...I I'm having to to pause numerous times and Google certain terms just so I can follow what hes saying

 

[andnowweknow]

Is this a serious topic? Whithout watching the vids; the guy gets high to come up with his theories and the BBC already debunked his ideas once.

What a lazy critique.

 

[cottagecheesefan]

Does this all PROVE that the Wheel Of Time series is 100% accurate?

 

[PainIsLIfe]

Sounds like a personal attack not based on his positions, which makes me more likely to believe him.

Ok, then believe him. You might want to at least watch 5he BBC docu.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Does this all PROVE that the Wheel Of Time series is 100% accurate?

Or the Farseer series. Tranny white prophets, makes more sense everyday.

 

[PainIsLIfe]

What a lazy critique.

Thank you. Care to cite his credentials for me?

 

[andnowweknow]

Hancock's problem is that he wants it to be true. He has a theory and then he makes evidence fit his theory which is not how science should work.

I think civilization is likely much older than we think but when you get into advanced civilizations that were wiped out, you need hard evidence for that. When you find ancient ruins that are mind blogging on how they were built, it doesn't necessarily mean that you had this ancient super race of people that died off. You simply had people that understood physics, leverage and engineering better than we did and mastered natural science. Meanwhile, modern humans view everything through the guise of machines, computers and technology and think it's impossible otherwise.

This is nothing more than a philosophical refutation that ignores the main logic of his reasoning. You can pick at the nuances and his speculation, he's not making the Younger Dryas up...nor is he making up the catastrophic bookends to it that support his theory.

You're also lazily explaining away particular constructions...certain constructions that some of the greatest minds to have ever existed have puzzled over throughout millennia. Modern society is the first iteration of puzzling over Giza for example, and coming up basically empty on a reasonable understanding of how it was done...nevermind why (tomb theory is a joke btw).

 

[VivaRevolution]

Ok, then believe him. You might want to at least watch 5he BBC docu.

Link?

Would have been better off just posting the debunk, of course if the debunk also contains personal attacks, I am likely to turn it off.

That is what I call a self debunk, of the debunkers.

You don't need personal attacks if you are right.

I thought Hancock's constant attacks on academia in his last podcast with Joe was very off putting. I understood his motivation in it, but it came across as him marketing the illegitimacy of academia, instead of his rightful victory lap on some of his ideas coming into mainstream academia.

 

[andnowweknow]

Thank you. Care to cite his credentials for me?

Another lazy critique. Maybe you should check his end notes dummy, he's a journalist quoting published science in most cases. Why don't you pick at something specific so I can quote Hancock to embarrass and humble you a little. Have you ever read his books? If not, these critiques are ridiculous of you.

You're parroting the "psuedoscience" naysayer bullshit. He's not a scientist, nor does he claim to be one.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Anything wood or metal is basically go e in 1000 years...or reused by later people. Your argument that we should see signs of it is both a product of not understanding the process by which materials degrade along with general misconceptions about sites we know of today that have not been attributed properly.

I'm not sure what you mean, metal artifacts have been found from millennia ago like, shields, swords and coins. The type of infrastructure needed to create 18th - 19th century technology like a steam engine is layered and complex and I don't see how this could be overlooked unless they were completely hidden from us.