Graham Hancock and the ancient civilization theory

[Lord_Impaler]

Has he himself published anything for peer review?

The peer review process for the Social Sciences is a running joke at this point. Surely you’ve seen some of the articles where people have published and submitted purposefully non-sensical papers, chock full of all the social justice buzzwords, and have been accepted to “scientific” journals.

 

[Mike K.O]

I always look at history as just theories
I belive that humans were much more mentally advanced in the past (by past I mean really long time ago)
Our understanding of the world is very limited

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Time stamp?

I tried to watch, got 20 minutes in.

Would be better if you could find an article showing what you are talking about though, because I don't think I could skip forward on that video.

Edit: I see. That isn't the video, it is a link. Will check out and respond again.

Any thoughts?

 

[VivaRevolution]

Any thoughts?

So the idea is that from this wheat and genetic info from domesticated animals, this is the evidence for the current prevailing theories of academia?

If so, that is indeed supporting evidence for current theories, but I'm not sure how it would invalidate Hancock's ideas.

The comet strike that Hancock proposes, isn't one of the 6 global extinction events, but it would have wiped out the evidence in this regard.

 

[rj144]

Is that the standard for journalists now?

No, like all journalists, he does not publish peer reviewed papers.

Journalist don't normally dabble in pseudo-science. And, he has come up with a "theory". If propose a theory under the guise of science, it should be peer reviewed. I think my point is valid.

 

[andnowweknow]

I agree with him completely.

The Egyptians(as we think of them today) did not build the pyramids. They simply found them and renovated them to their liking.

Humanity got seriously FUKT up. It should give all of us serious pause, because....it seems far more often than one would expect, a meteor comes and just completely resets everything. We are not immune to it. It could be today, or it could be 80 years from now. But sooner than later another meteor WILL ko the planet again like a Mike Tyson uppercut.

The most powerful nations are always playing these little war games against eachother, investing billions in war tech, the US spending 600bil per year on the defense budget, etc. If we were fucking smart, we would all come together and throw up some REALLY reliable meteor defense systems. I know we monitor them, but not well enough. You can only watch so much of the sky right now. And if we did see one roaring towards us destined to wipe out all life in a week or so, as of right now it would just be everyone looking at eachother like "......ideas? can we nuke it????? what if we fly a ship into it to alter its trajectory!?" but we havent actually got anything in place to execute this with precision.

if we dont do anything humanity might get reset, again, or hell even completely eliminated. and then in 20k years our distant relatives will find our satellites in orbit and be bewildered by them, like we are with the pyramids.

Hancock has pointed this out, but our budget for earth crossing object detection is the equivalent to that which would be required to run a single McDonald's for a year. It's a joke.

 

[andnowweknow]

Journalist don't normally dabble in pseudo-science. And, he has come up with a "theory". If propose a theory under the guise of science, it should be peer reviewed. I think my point is valid.

You saying "pseudoscience" is garbage. Go watch Hancock embarrass professional skeptic Michael Shermer and his "pseudoscience" lazy arguments. All the pseudoscience arguments that get hurled at Hancock are basically lumping him in with people who have far nuttier ideas than he does.

I'm not Hancock and I dont support everything he says in specificity, but his catastrophe argument posited in the early 90s that was scoffed at is essentially scientific fact at this point. The comet impact hypothesis is incredibly strong in the peer reviewed world if that's your standard. Bashing a journalist for reporting that is really misguided.

 

[rj144]

You saying "pseudoscience" is garbage. Go watch Hancock embarrass professional skeptic Michael Shermer and his "pseudoscience" lazy arguments. All the pseudoscience arguments that get hurled at Hancock are basically lumping him in with people who have far nuttier ideas than he does.

I'm not Hancock and I dont support everything he says in specificity, but his catastrophe argument posited in the early 90s that was scoffed at is essentially scientific fact at this point. The comet impact hypothesis is incredibly strong in the peer reviewed world if that's your standard. Bashing a journalist for reporting that is really misguided.

Is he doing actual science? Adhering to scientific rigor and standards? In not, it's pseudoscience. It's not even debatable.

 

[Noveltymortar]

At its core, academia just exists to reinforce the prevailing narrative that we are random, accidental creatures with no greater purpose. This is how “they” convince us to worship things/idols via consumerism. And make no mistake, consumerism is the religion of the world because that is what our civilization is structured around. Don’t get tricked with the labels. This is in contrast with Ancient Egypt where everything revolves around life, and internal spiritual development.

We live in the dark ages. Don’t believe the hype. John Anthony West was a big help in understanding this.

I think when you refer to ancient Egypt you meant to say that everything revolved around slavery and/or servitude.

 

[andnowweknow]

Is he doing actual science? Adhering to scientific rigor and standards? In not, it's pseudoscience. It's not even debatable.

He's reporting the work of other people. He's a journalist. You can buy his arguments or not, he's an incredibly well researched non fiction writer. Your pseudoscience argument remains, garbage. Refute something he says that bothers you, don't just use these generalizing ad hominem attacks on him personally that don't address anything he says. Shit, the guy isn't claiming he's a scientist and never has, yet you're calling him a pseudoscientist.

What you're doing is just avoiding the actual topic, in which case just go find something else to converse about.

 

[franklinstower]

I don't know a lot about these theories but am skeptical.

Part of the confusion I have is what is meant by advanced civilization. If you mean similar to their Romans had or something then I think that could be but if you mean computers and technology similar to what we have now then I really don't think that is possible.

I think if there were civilizations as advanced as we are today we would find plastic and glass and old cities or a plane frozen in ice or something.

 

[andnowweknow]

I think when you refer to ancient Egypt you meant to say that everything revolved around slavery and/or servitude.

Revisit this assumption in the literature. The idea it was a largely slave based society, at least in the old kingdom, has changed quite a lot.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

So the idea is that from this wheat and genetic info from domesticated animals, this is the evidence for the current prevailing theories of academia?

If so, that is indeed supporting evidence for current theories, but I'm not sure how it would invalidate Hancock's ideas.

The comet strike that Hancock proposes, isn't one of the 6 global extinction events, but it would have wiped out the evidence in this regard.

No it definitely doesn't invalidate Hancock's claim as all evidence of this pre-civilization could still be undiscovered. This evidence does provide multiple fields of science, converging and providing support for the current mainstream theory of academia. Until more converging evidence is found for Hancock's theories it will remain on the fringe.

 

[Noveltymortar]

Revisit this assumption in the literature. The idea it was a largely slave based society, at least in the old kingdom, has changed quite a lot.

No, it pretty much was based on slavery or servitude. Revisionist opinion-based BS literature notwithstanding.

 

[andnowweknow]

I don't know a lot about these theories but am skeptical.

Part of the confusion I have is what is meant by advanced civilization. If you mean similar to their Romans had or something then I think that could be but if you mean computers and technology similar to what we have now then I really don't think that is possible.

I think if there were civilizations as advanced as we are today we would find plastic and glass and old cities or a plane frozen in ice or something.

Hancock and most reasonable proponents of the previous civilization talk about advanced, but not in the context of our current civilization. "Advanced" is a loaded word. Clearly old Kingdom Egypt was more advanced than us in building large scale with stone, and they were literally magicians IF you are to believe they built the great pyramid in 20 years.

So no, computers and that sort of technology aren't what's being proposed by serious people. In fact, outside speculation on building techniques, I've heard the technology level referred to vaguely as "being able to map the world" accurately.

 

[franklinstower]

Hancock and most reasonable proponents of the previous civilization talk about advanced, but not in the context of our current civilization. "Advanced" is a loaded word. Clearly old Kingdom Egypt was more advanced than us in building large scale with stone, and they were literally magicians IF you are to believe they built the great pyramid in 20 years.

So no, computers and that sort of technology aren't what's being proposed by serious people. In fact, outside speculation on building techniques, I've heard the technology level referred to vaguely as "being able to map the world" accurately.

Thank you for posting this reply. I am going to spend the time on the video because of it. I once had a guy on here argue for same level tech as we have and it just doesn't seem possible.

 

[andnowweknow]

No, it pretty much was based on slavery or servitude. Revisionist opinion-based BS literature notwithstanding.

Nope. It certainly wasn't. I love how new understanding in the historical record is now "revisionist theory". Before you go down s rabbit hole of debunkery, clarify your understanding of old and new kingdom Egypt. It will save you time.

 

[Noveltymortar]

Nope. It certainly wasn't. I love how new understanding in the historical record is now "revisionist theory". Before you go down s rabbit hole of debunkery, clarify your understanding of old and new kingdom Egypt. It will save you time.

I don't debate nonsense with fantasists. I just point out the nonsense and move on.

 

[VivaRevolution]

No it definitely doesn't invalidate Hancock's claim as all evidence of this pre-civilization could still be undiscovered. This evidence does provide multiple fields of science, converging and providing support for the current mainstream theory of academia. Until more converging evidence is found for Hancock's theories it will remain on the fringe.

I do think that theory is correct for explaining the history of modern society.

I just don't agree with Clovis first.

I give this theory credence because it does answer some questions, no one else seems to be able to explain, like why we see the 3rd eye in cultures around the world in what we once thought was the first societies. Very few theories could explain that, just as very few theories can explain that Denisovan bracelet.

Perhaps there are other explanations we just haven't found yet, but I find his explanations very compelling.

I know the issue of the Denisovan bracelet is very narrow, but would you agree that Hancock's theory should be considered the leading theory as of now, to explain the existence of that bracelet?

 

[andnowweknow]

Thank you for posting this reply. I am going to spend the time on the video because of it. I once had a guy on here argue for same level tech as we have and it just doesn't seem possible.

It depends what the society values, right? Today, we have zero interest in going to what seems unconscionable lengths to amass a building (cheops/khufu pyramid) made of 2.3 million stones ranging weight from 1 to 80 tons in weight. One that is only 3/60th of a degree off of true north with a 14 acre foot print. You could build 30 empire state building with the amount of stone in the great pyramid. That is EXTREME. And putting the tomb theory aside, we have no idea why they decided to invest so much into a structure like that. It's hard for us to imagine that perhaps they didn't have computers but maybe, just maybe, somehow, building like that was easy for them.

Your values and goals and structure determine what a society pursues. We are currently living in a reductionist and materialist world, where reason is the dominating factor. Perhaps it was not always the case.