Graham Hancock and the ancient civilization theory

[mrsenor]

 

[ShadBo]

The chances of humans civilisation happening twice is near on impossible, once was a fluke but twice gtfoh

What are the odds that one person would win the lottery?

What are the odds that one person would win the lottery twice?

Arguments from probability don't work because improbable things happen all the time.

 

[aus101]

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.

We only make plastic due to a very particular set of events (Constantinople falling to the Turks bringing about the renaissance when the lost knowledge of the romans/Greeks was taken by survivors to Europe, which then caused the growth of science and secularism, which was followed by the Americas being discovered which brought about mass shipping and trade, which led to the banking system in England (as sending a ship to the new world was expensive and required prior funds), which led to the growth of industry and enterprise, leading to the creation of the steam engine and the use of England’s shallow coal reserves (which could be profitably transported along England’s water ways as road travel was too expensive), which led to the industrial revolution, to our use of oil which creates plastic as a bi-product.

A very particular chain of events that a prior civilisation would not of experienced (and thus their tech advancement would of followed a completely different path, without plastic and likely without coal as well).

 

[blaseblah]

No it isn't, lol.

Where have I claimed this is proven?

The god of the gaps arguemnt says that a lack of evidence to the contrary is proof of the existence of God.

I never made that claim. However I will tell you that in the year 1500, the leading theory for existence, was god.

Perhaps that statement will help you understand your fallacy here.

No, you were literally using the God of the Gaps argument.

"if you can't offer another theory, then his theory is the leading one."

Creationists use this exact same illogic to support their opinions.

You also lack understanding of what a scientific theory is. If I come up with an opinion for something currently unexplained by science, it doesn't somehow become the "leading theory."

Your posts are getting pretty ridiculous, I have to believe this is a troll job. I hope it is one.

 

[MoparOrNoCar]

We only make plastic due to a very particular set of events (Constantinople falling to the Turks bringing about the renaissance when the lost knowledge of the romans/Greeks was taken by survivors to Europe, which then caused the growth of science and secularism, which was followed by the Americas being discovered which brought about mass shipping and trade, which led to the banking system in England (as sending a ship to the new world was expensive and required prior funds), which led to the growth of industry and enterprise, leading to the creation of the steam engine and the use of England’s shallow coal reserves (which could be profitably transported along England’s water ways as road travel was too expensive), which led to the industrial revolution, to our use of oil which creates plastic as a bi-product.

A very particular chain of events that a prior civilisation would not of experienced (and thus their tech advancement would of followed a completely different path, without plastic and likely without coal as well).

I feel like that was bound to happen no matter what. The world was eventually going to be interconnected, which means the need for oil was bound to pop up sooner or later. The string of events that you talk about could be considered particular but I feel like there were an infinite number of strings that would have taken it's place even if it didn't happen in that particular way.

 

[andnowweknow]

the helmets are obviously curious...and the fact we know literally nothing about who these people were.

 

[Joe265]

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

It’s not me saying anything. Unlike you I don’t form opinions by talking out of my ass. You’re a random fool disagreeing with R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz. Go look him up, dummy.

 

[Anung Un Rama]

This is a fascinating subject. Will watch.

 

[GtehMVP]

Randall Carlson is what made me believe in ancient advance civs being more probable than not. How advanced were potentially "ancient civs", who knows, but the destruction he shows across North America alone is astonishing. I studied physical geography, and loved researching ice ages and their impact, but the videos/images he shows/explains, really puts things into perspective.

It's difficult to wrap our heads around the destruction a giant meteor impact could have, especially if they instantly melted miles upon miles of ice sheets at the peak of an ice age. The firestorm, rainfall, and mass flooding, we're talking hundreds of feet of water racing across landmasses, would devastate anything in their paths.

If our civilization was wiped out today, the only thing left standing in thousands of years would be structures like the Hoover dam. We don't even know how the Romans built some of their structures, and the Pyramid (Giza) builders are still a complete mystery.

 

[tramendous]

And i think you misunderstand what we should expect to find in terms of metals from 10k+ years ago. The answer is nothing.

Further. I would posit there's probably evidence of it everywhere in plain site, just misunderstood and mischaracterized in attribution.

Thats a lot of speculation. Do you think a city like 1850 london would leave no trace? What exactly do you mean by "evidence in plain site" and dont you realize you could make that argument for anything? I.E. Pretty sure there is evidence for non human civilizations on earth in plain sight that we dont know about.

 

[andnowweknow]

Thats a lot of speculation. Do you think a city like 1850 london would leave no trace? What exactly do you mean by "evidence in plain site" and dont you realize you could make that argument for anything? I.E. Pretty sure there is evidence for non human civilizations on earth in plain sight that we dont know about.

Again, you're imprinting what you think should be left of a city like 1850s London onto what actually would be left. Go look at Giza, the structures there are literally magnitudes more robust and impervious to time than anything you see in a city like London. Further, Giza was a quarry for the city of Cairo for centuries...in 1200 AD an earthquake knocked a few of the upper outer casing stones loose which allowed locals to get crow bars in between the smooth limestone blocks...half the fucking city is built out of those blocks.

Here's a photo of the few remaining in situ of more than 144,000 that were originally in place.

The rest of the original Giza plateau stuff besides the massive stone building is either gone or buried under the sand. I would suggest, to play along with your London from the 1850s idea that several things might be found or be noticed and might still be there today, say the underground transport structures (none of the surface structures would be recognizable at all, all the platforms of concrete and rebar would be dust by now).

Further, consider how the world has changed from a cartography stance? See level has risen more than 400 feet since the last glacial maximum. Our largest cities are built on the coasts today...so go look there if you want to find evidence of these places, 400+ feet below the waves, perhaps many many miles off the coasts.

The amount of coastal land lost to the ocean was equivalent to the size of Europe and China combined...Indonesia was a continent 12k+ years ago...it's gone.

Regarding evidence we see today and misidentify. I'll just say if you look at the way the attribute buildings to certain peoples, to say those reasons are less than evidentially robust would be an understatement. At times, literally all the reason noted for attribution of an otherwise anonymous building to a certain people and time is it's proximity to another known structure...IE, "we have no clue wtf that thing is, but it's only a bit away from this building we understand, the same people must have built it, who cares if construction methods are unrecognizable between the two of them."

I can provide examples if you're interested.

At the end of the day, there is probably evidence all over the place buried that while hard to recognize still exists. Finding it is another matter.

 

[VivaRevolution]

No, you were literally using the God of the Gaps argument.

"if you can't offer another theory, then his theory is the leading one."

Creationists use this exact same illogic to support their opinions.

You also lack understanding of what a scientific theory is. If I come up with an opinion for something currently unexplained by science, it doesn't somehow become the "leading theory."

Your posts are getting pretty ridiculous, I have to believe this is a troll job. I hope it is one.

No. Have you been tested for retardation?

Saying something is the leading theory, and claiming something is proof, are two very different statements.

 

[Krallang]

On the subject of the pyramids, what I find most interesting is 35,000 years ago the base of the pyramids would have been next to the nile river.

Now the nile river is miles away from the pyramids. Then there are old texts that talk about water corrosion of the limestone on the pyramids.

Its too bad the local egyptians removed the limestone and destroyed any evidence.

 

[tramendous]

Again, you're imprinting what you think should be left of a city like 1850s London onto what actually would be left. Go look at Giza, the structures there are literally magnitudes more robust and impervious to time than anything you see in a city like London. Further, Giza was a quarry for the city of Cairo for centuries...in 1200 AD an earthquake knocked a few of the upper outer casing stones loose which allowed locals to get crow bars in between the smooth limestone blocks...half the fucking city is built out of those blocks.

Here's a photo of the few remaining in situ of more than 144,000 that were originally in place.

The rest of the original Giza plateau stuff besides the massive stone building is either gone or buried under the sand. I would suggest, to play along with your London from the 1850s idea that several things might be found or be noticed and might still be there today, say the underground transport structures (none of the surface structures would be recognizable at all, all the platforms of concrete and rebar would be dust by now).

Further, consider how the world has changed from a cartography stance? See level has risen more than 400 feet since the last glacial maximum. Our largest cities are built on the coasts today...so go look there if you want to find evidence of these places, 400+ feet below the waves, perhaps many many miles off the coasts.

The amount of coastal land lost to the ocean was equivalent to the size of Europe and China combined...Indonesia was a continent 12k+ years ago...it's gone.

Regarding evidence we see today and misidentify. I'll just say if you look at the way the attribute buildings to certain peoples, to say those reasons are less than evidentially robust would be an understatement. At times, literally all the reason noted for attribution of an otherwise anonymous building to a certain people and time is it's proximity to another known structure...IE, "we have no clue wtf that thing is, but it's only a bit away from this building we understand, the same people must have built it, who cares if construction methods are unrecognizable between the two of them."

I can provide examples if you're interested.

At the end of the day, there is probably evidence all over the place buried that while hard to recognize still exists. Finding it is another matter.

Pretty sure there is evidence of a martian fairy civilization from 300k years ago in plain sight on mars. If we dont find it its because we wavent found the method to detect them.

^ your logic.

 

[bubbleboyjones]

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.

Also this wouldn't happen in some vacuum where this footprint was limited to a 500 mile radius to some advance civilization. Any type of advance civilization like this would have a footprint world wide and the population would be pretty massive.

 

[andnowweknow]

Pretty sure there is evidence of a martian fairy civilization from 300k years ago in plain sight on mars. If we dont find it its because we wavent found the method to detect them.

^ your logic.

What a stupid point. If you want to use shit logic as a response we can stop the discussion. I just presented ample information and you went completely off the rails with some dumb analogy to martians.

We have the methods to find this evidence, nobody has looked. The amount of space surveyed, especially off the coasts underwater is almost nil. Did you even look at the sea level gif? I thought that would make the point simple.

Last, this requires only a mildly open mind, my guess is you can't imagine this wouldn't be obvious if true. I'm telling you you're flatly wrong.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

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?

Clovis First's primary support was that no solid evidence of pre-Clovis human habitation has been found in the Americas. Now that new sites like ButterMilk Creek have been found that predate Clovis the consensus has been overturned. As for the Denisovan Bracelet, it is an interesting artifact and is still being studied. It's ok right now for us to say that we don't know right now, it's an extreme reach to suggest that an advanced civilization 60k years ago drilled the hole without any real converging evidence to support that theory. If you believe it, know it's because you simply want to and not really because of the evidence at this point.

 

[Voodoo_Child906]

Also this wouldn't happen in some vacuum where this footprint was limited to a 500 mile radius to some advance civilization. Any type of advance civilization like this would have a footprint world wide and the population would be pretty massive.

Exactly, if you're getting to technology like the Steam Engine, Combustible Engine, Light Bulb etc. then rationally you have a pretty big mark on the world. What's being proposed is highly unlikely in my mind.

 

[andnowweknow]

Exactly, if you're getting to technology like the Steam Engine, Combustible Engine, Light Bulb etc. then rationally you have a pretty big mark on the world. What's being proposed is highly unlikely in my mind.

I'll leave it to you to independently verify what I'm about to say, but I think you really underestimate or just haven't look into the extent to which the physical state of the earth has changed since the last glacial maximum 21k years ago, and more acutely from 12.8k years ago until today. The world is a drastically different place having undergone a change that there is no memory of anything remotely correlary to it in the written human record.

For some reference on metals, the Golden Gate bridge is constantly undergoing maintenance. Left alone and unmaintained, it would probably fall apart from rust and other degredation in a few hundred years, if not less.

 

[Krallang]

There are other interesting clues found all over the place. Hell Africa has barely been touched and there are literally thousands of ancient sites some dating back as far as 200,000 years.

Maputo for example has a wall that stretches 1500 km and is 3.5 meters tall. The dating of 200,000 years is being disputed but there are also anka symbols (an egyptian god). Weird how the symbol of an egyptian god is found thousands of miles away thousands of years before the existence of Egypt.

You also have the Sumerian tablet of kings which records the name of kings, which if accurate would place the reign of the first king 224,000 years ago.

Overall there's no smoking gun in terms of being able to absolutely prove the existence of far more ancient civilizations but there is enough evidence popping up each year that is slowly tilting that way.