• The upgrade to XenForo 2.3.7 has now been completed. Please report any issues to our administrators.

Graham Hancock and the ancient civilization theory

Do you think this theory is correct?


  • Total voters
    109
Now imagine that they don't even look for these things in excavation sites, because they have already decided there is nothing there to look for, and you have a pretty good picture of where we are.

People say where is the evidence, and Hancock responds, "well, I might be able to show it to you, if archeologists would start looking."


How did humans start finding dinosaur bones without looking?
 
Why in the world did he think that was credible at the time, that theory is counter to all of current data within Geology. This along with all the other points that the BBC documentary presented paints a picture of either an absolute hack or a hustler trying to sell his books.
you're being a little harsh here, he presented the only theory of any note available as to why the Younger Dryas might have happened. None of those people critiquing him were offering anything else. So if all you're saying is that he should have just not said anything, ok. He was just offering an idea, not one of his own but moving on...

quick question, do you generally think "absolute hacks" put in the field work that Graham Hancock has? The guy did over 300 technical dives on sites underwater, he has walked the walk. These sort of personal attacks you're parroting are unhelpful, and they lack the context of the fact he never presented himself as a scientist but when he wrote a popular book he got lambasted by scientists because people were listening more to his speculation than the archeology communities complete silence on the elephant in the room of "what the hell were people doing in pre history"...the lazy "hunting and gathering" nonsense resonates with nobody and makes no sense given how far we've come from the upper Paleolithic until today.

Modern humans haven't changed in an anatomical sense for at least 200k years...why do you think we have no record of what was going on culturally prior to the Younger Dryas? Because they were just running around naked and too lazy to get civilized? That's not a rhetorical question, and I think it's better to play the logic game as opposed to hammering a guy like Hancock who speculates more than you think he should.

To oppose Hancock (not hit him with "your evidence sucks"), I would say you'd point out that perhaps just as the dinosaurs dying let the shrew thrive and become us, so too might the death of the mega predators at the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary have allowed us to "spread our wings" a bit. And that is probably less likely a plausible reason than the fact that climate played a role, or better explained, the events of the younger dryas and the unusually long warmth provided within the Holocene interglacial epoch of time has somehow been a factor in our progress. But again it's not like there wasn't plenty of land during the ice age that was very benign and pleasant to live in.
 
12,000 years isn't enough time to wipe advanced civilizations off the face of the Earth. We would've found their remnants.

Is 100,000 years?
 
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.


Oil or something similar to it can be derived in more than one way, without plastics being byproduct.
 
you're being a little harsh here, he presented the only theory of any note available as to why the Younger Dryas might have happened. None of those people critiquing him were offering anything else. So if all you're saying is that he should have just not said anything, ok. He was just offering an idea, not one of his own but moving on...

Offered an Idea? He presented a theory that was completely contrary to the current Geological data of Antartica, sorry that is a big deal and one that should not have been overlooked by anyone with any semblance of competence. He also got caught arbitrarily choosing points at Angor Wat and trying to pass them off as a match fro Draco when they CLEARLY were not, again is that just incompetence or he is being dishonest here. Why was these items never mentioned by him?

quick question, do you generally think "absolute hacks" put in the field work that Graham Hancock has? The guy did over 300 technical dives on sites underwater, he has walked the walk. These sort of personal attacks you're parroting are unhelpful, and they lack the context of the fact he never presented himself as a scientist but when he wrote a popular book he got lambasted by scientists because people were listening more to his speculation than the archeology communities complete silence on the elephant in the room of "what the hell were people doing in pre history"...the lazy "hunting and gathering" nonsense resonates with nobody and makes no sense given how far we've come from the upper Paleolithic until today.

"Field Work" you yourself have just stated that he is not a trained scientist so I don't see how dives fully funded by his own book sales constitute as field work. If he stated that his theories were fiction and not meant to have a scientific basis to them then no one would bat an eye. Instead he states that he is presenting an alternate "theory" which his followers genuinely believe is grounded in scientific data. This is what I'm calling out.

Modern humans haven't changed in an anatomical sense for at least 200k years...why do you think we have no record of what was going on culturally prior to the Younger Dryas? Because they were just running around naked and too lazy to get civilized? That's not a rhetorical question, and I think it's better to play the logic game as opposed to hammering a guy like Hancock who speculates more than you think he should.

Civilization requires a lot of prerequisites:

-Language for communication
-A surplus of food on a regular basis
-Selective Breeding of plants and animals
-Transportation technology to distribute
-Writing for administration and commerce
-A more complex social system

All of these took time, especially the domestication of plants and animals. If there were wild changes and catastrophes that wiped out groups and knowledge people would need to start again. The last 10,000 years have been a period of unusual climatic stability, markedly so when compared to the previous 500,000 years. It's really difficult to start selective breeding, settle into one place, create a government when wild fluctuations in global mean temp, crop production, rainfall and sea level keep happening.

As far as I've read, Hancock has never addressed what it would actually take to build a civilization from the environments that were present at the time and instead chose to make wild unscientific speculative claims.

To oppose Hancock (not hit him with "your evidence sucks"), I would say you'd point out that perhaps just as the dinosaurs dying let the shrew thrive and become us, so too might the death of the mega predators at the Pleistocene/Holocene boundary have allowed us to "spread our wings" a bit. And that is probably less likely a plausible reason than the fact that climate played a role, or better explained, the events of the younger dryas and the unusually long warmth provided within the Holocene interglacial epoch of time has somehow been a factor in our progress. But again it's not like there wasn't plenty of land during the ice age that was very benign and pleasant to live in.

Why is he even discussing evidence when he just makes wild speculation with no regard for the current geological data? If he wants to make fictional speculation be my guest but don't pretend it has any basis is science.
 
Offered an Idea? He presented a theory that was completely contrary to the current Geological data of Antartica, sorry that is a big deal and one that should not have been overlooked by anyone with any semblance of competence. He also got caught arbitrarily choosing points at Angor Wat and trying to pass them off as a match fro Draco when they CLEARLY were not, again is that just incompetence or he is being dishonest here. Why was these items never mentioned by him?



"Field Work" you yourself have just stated that he is not a trained scientist so I don't see how dives fully funded by his own book sales constitute as field work. If he stated that his theories were fiction and not meant to have a scientific basis to them then no one would bat an eye. Instead he states that he is presenting an alternate "theory" which his followers genuinely believe is grounded in scientific data. This is what I'm calling out.



Civilization requires a lot of prerequisites:

-Language for communication
-A surplus of food on a regular basis
-Selective Breeding of plants and animals
-Transportation technology to distribute
-Writing for administration and commerce
-A more complex social system

All of these took time, especially the domestication of plants and animals. If there were wild changes and catastrophes that wiped out groups and knowledge people would need to start again. The last 10,000 years have been a period of unusual climatic stability, markedly so when compared to the previous 500,000 years. It's really difficult to start selective breeding, settle into one place, create a government when wild fluctuations in global mean temp, crop production, rainfall and sea level keep happening.

As far as I've read, Hancock has never addressed what it would actually take to build a civilization from the environments that were present at the time and instead chose to make wild unscientific speculative claims.



Why is he even discussing evidence when he just makes wild speculation with no regard for the current geological data? If he wants to make fictional speculation be my guest but don't pretend it has any basis is science.

Look, it's pretty clear you have an axe to grind with Hancock. Have at it, I think he's probably generally right on missing high civilization (not commenting on extent of that advancement). He's also clearly been wrong about certain things. I think you're transparently irritated by him and that's fine, I also think it dampens your points about him when you criticize his field work but whatever, we can discuss this without him in the equation personally, the topic exists on its own.

I'll just make a few points here to give you some perspective on the points of view opposite Hancock that you're deifying in opposition to Hancock's views...at this point he is lock step with Geology so there is no disagreement to be had there any longer.

-Archeology isn't a science...it's art history. It's one of the least accurate of the research fields and HEAVILY based on guesses, some not very educated due to what is not there. The views of these art history majors is the view you are echoing in opposition to Hancock, and you're treating the field like a legitimate science. It ain't.

-The VAST majority of orthodox Egyptologists believe the Great Pyramid (all pyramids are tombs) in Egypt is a tomb for the pharaoh Khufu. The evidence for that is a joke by any "scientific" standard, which you seem to want to see followed, yet the theory is assumed true I'm guessing by yourself as well as academia at large based on almost nothing solid. In brief and near completion of the evidence supporting it, it is based on a 2 inch statue of Khufu found hundreds of yards away (lol), on the fact they believe they know Khufu existed (great), and a red cartouche in an upper relieving chamber saying "brotherhood/gang of Khufu", which may or may not be a forgery by Howard Vyse and proves nothing of who built what (I'm sold). Does that sound scientifically sound to you? Does that sound like a good enough reason to INSIST again all credulity that it was built in 20 years because it had to have been done during the Pharaoh's life? You think the above evidence is good evidence that Khufu built the Great Pyramid as a tomb for himself? These are the views you're on the side of...art history majors, not scientists. The above isn't because these people are dumb (some of them are for buying this completely, but whatever), it's because the amount of evidence to assume it is severely lacking.

NEXT...in order to aid you easing up bashing the "alternative history hack"...

-Overkill hypothesis...where to begin with this gem of nonsense from the other side of the coin to Hancock. Did you know that archeologists and those who studied the terminal Pleistocene extinction event for DECADES (and to this day) suggest that the mega fauna collapse was largely due to human hunting? Why did they not check with Geology before making such a claim of clear human grandeur and aggrandizement? Did mainstream academics not have the professionalism to check and take note of the Younger Dryas and the bookending events surrounding it that so obviously should suspect numero uno in the large animal population collapse? Do they still not take note (in the last decade they have started to change tune because they look moronic at this point arguing the overkill hypothesis)?

The suggestion of Overkill as the reason for the mega faunal collapse is another example of scientists, the ones you are deifying in opposition to "hacks like Hancock", getting it WOEFULLY wrong even when faced with the OBVIOUSNESS of climate catastrophe (regardless of cause) they were well aware, and choosing instead an alternative doctrine of explanation so patently ridiculous (now) regarding human beings murdering 100 species of mammals so fast they couldn't reproduce...and knowing full well the population of Mammoths worldwide might have exceeded that of humans...What idiotic, irresponsible hackery, right!?

maybe Hancock's suggestion of earth crust displacement in the face of no other avenue is forgivable given the above? Maybe you have taken critique a little beyond what is warranted in using his mistakes to bludgeon his overall works?

Regarding your thoughts on how civilization must arise, the meat and best part of your post, you may be right and the stability of the current climate, Hancock specifically aside, is the best argument against rises and advancement in civilization prior to the end of the last ice age..and it may well be correct in concert with the megafaunal die off aiding human beings "out of their holes. Or maybe not, and that underestimates human beings a bit. I do appreciate your contribution to the conversation, outside your personal distaste for the author most famous for popularizing a "lost civilization", I think you have helped me think of quite a few things in different ways that I thought about them before.
 
Last edited:














_______________________________

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..........


See it's a Joe Rogan podcast:

giphy.gif
 
The back and forth about "Hancock's ideas" serves as misdirection about the elephant in the room here. He's never had an original idea. But continues to pay lip service to the guys doing the real research while implicitly taking the credit when interviewed. And his fans continue to be awestruck by 'his' brilliant ideas. Started way back with Fingerprints. If you want a real eye opener check out Flem-Ath's old interview buried on the Above Top Secret website. This guy published in the scientific literature about origins of agriculture- was talking about the extinctions (non-human causation) and the significance of indigenous mythology and was mentored by Charles Hapgood. He dug deep into the possibility of a lost civilization - all while Hancock was still doing coffee table books for an African dictator. Always been interested because Flem-Ath is a fellow Canadian and I read When the Sky Fell when it came out - before Fingerprints came out anywhere. Discovered the genre and have read all I could. Whatever you think about the subject matter Hancock's appropriation of the work - for hundreds of pages before crediting - is slimy. What's the chances that two writers are going to list the same four species out of thirty-eight in the same order found in a rare hard to get book. It's all in the details, as they say. Found it fascinating that in the original audio of Fingerprints Flem-Ath and his wife are completed erased from the book. Even though every other word is included. ("Text chosen by author.") Put my antenna up. Even wrote them about it. Entire Part 1 of that book is about Antarctica. From Underworld, 'I'm not looking for Atlantis. That way lies madness.' Until it's convenient. It seems to me, he takes a pin and decides where the most advantageous spot to put the lost continent is. This America Before thing seems like a clever marketing ploy. The 'species with amnesia' tag line always delivered as if it's a clever, original summation, is typical of his m.o. It's straight from Velikovsky - Mankind in Amnesia. Small but telling example. Anyway, like or dislike him, his attempts to set himself up as some kind of spiritual example lecturing to his acolytes about how to live, are inappropriate, to say the least.
 
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.


FYI, a bit of cursory googling shows that you don't need particularly sophisticated tools to drill stone. It's pretty clear you don't even need a metal bit.

The attached paper describes an entirely plausible neolithic method for drilling stone. The pictures of the rig used is at the bottom of the paper.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259583371_Drilling_through_stone_axes

So drilling shows that the Denisovans were, in all likelihood, as smart as modern humans, but it doesn't demonstrate a level of technology that would have baffled a neolithic hunter, and it would have looked primitive to anyone from Mesopotamia, even as early as 3000 BC.
 
Look, it's pretty clear you have an axe to grind with Hancock. Have at it, I think he's probably generally right on missing high civilization (not commenting on extent of that advancement). He's also clearly been wrong about certain things. I think you're transparently irritated by him and that's fine, I also think it dampens your points about him when you criticize his field work but whatever, we can discuss this without him in the equation personally, the topic exists on its own.

Like I said earlier, I only have an axe to grind if Hancock really believes what he is representing is science and scholarship. If instead he is merely hustling a bunch of conspiracy minded neophytes then I have no issue and actually tip my hat to him.

I'll just make a few points here to give you some perspective on the points of view opposite Hancock that you're deifying in opposition to Hancock's views...at this point he is lock step with Geology so there is no disagreement to be had there any longer.

-Archeology isn't a science...it's art history. It's one of the least accurate of the research fields and HEAVILY based on guesses, some not very educated due to what is not there. The views of these art history majors is the view you are echoing in opposition to Hancock, and you're treating the field like a legitimate science. It ain't.

I really can't believe that is your view of archaeological science. It's confusing to say the least.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeological_science

I am also echoing the work of geologists and geophysicists that have done extensive research on the Ice-Core dating of Antarctica.

-The VAST majority of orthodox Egyptologists believe the Great Pyramid (all pyramids are tombs) in Egypt is a tomb for the pharaoh Khufu. The evidence for that is a joke by any "scientific" standard, which you seem to want to see followed, yet the theory is assumed true I'm guessing by yourself as well as academia at large based on almost nothing solid. In brief and near completion of the evidence supporting it, it is based on a 2 inch statue of Khufu found hundreds of yards away (lol), on the fact they believe they know Khufu existed (great), and a red cartouche in an upper relieving chamber saying "brotherhood/gang of Khufu", which may or may not be a forgery by Howard Vyse and proves nothing of who built what (I'm sold). Does that sound scientifically sound to you? Does that sound like a good enough reason to INSIST again all credulity that it was built in 20 years because it had to have been done during the Pharaoh's life? You think the above evidence is good evidence that Khufu built the Great Pyramid as a tomb for himself? These are the views you're on the side of...art history majors, not scientists. The above isn't because these people are dumb (some of them are for buying this completely, but whatever), it's because the amount of evidence to assume it is severely lacking.

There may be legitimate debate and discussion on the facets of Egyptology but it's obvious that neither you or I have the education and training to participate. I can some it up with this question, can you read ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs and translate them into Greek? If not you may be out of your depth with Egyptology, I know I am.

NEXT...in order to aid you easing up bashing the "alternative history hack"...

-Overkill hypothesis...where to begin with this gem of nonsense from the other side of the coin to Hancock. Did you know that archeologists and those who studied the terminal Pleistocene extinction event for DECADES (and to this day) suggest that the mega fauna collapse was largely due to human hunting? Why did they not check with Geology before making such a claim of clear human grandeur and aggrandizement? Did mainstream academics not have the professionalism to check and take note of the Younger Dryas and the bookending events surrounding it that so obviously should suspect numero uno in the large animal population collapse? Do they still not take note (in the last decade they have started to change tune because they look moronic at this point arguing the overkill hypothesis)?

The suggestion of Overkill as the reason for the mega faunal collapse is another example of scientists, the ones you are deifying in opposition to "hacks like Hancock", getting it WOEFULLY wrong even when faced with the OBVIOUSNESS of climate catastrophe (regardless of cause) they were well aware, and choosing instead an alternative doctrine of explanation so patently ridiculous (now) regarding human beings murdering 100 species of mammals so fast they couldn't reproduce...and knowing full well the population of Mammoths worldwide might have exceeded that of humans...What idiotic, irresponsible hackery, right!?

Wait a minute, the Overkill Hypothesis was proposed over 40 years ago by Martin. Others were the Climate Change Hypothesis, Hyper Disease and finally Comet Hypothesis. It could have been a combination of all of them. Why do you think the Overkill was the dominant paradigm, it never made it to theory and remained a hypothesis.

maybe Hancock's suggestion of earth crust displacement in the face of no other avenue is forgivable given the above? Maybe you have taken critique a little beyond what is warranted in using his mistakes to bludgeon his overall works?

If he has changed, I definitely could get over this as maybe over zealousness. Has he printed a retraction for this and Draco?

Regarding your thoughts on how civilization must arise, the meat and best part of your post, you may be right and the stability of the current climate, Hancock specifically aside, is the best argument against rises and advancement in civilization prior to the end of the last ice age..and it may well be correct in concert with the megafaunal die off aiding human beings "out of their holes. Or maybe not, and that underestimates human beings a bit. I do appreciate your contribution to the conversation, outside your personal distaste for the author most famous for popularizing a "lost civilization", I think you have helped me think of quite a few things in different ways that I thought about them before.

I'm not saying that earlier civilizations didn't arise, that would be foolish of me to do so. I presented a case as to why it may have taken so long and what markers we may see to help us determine if any did arise. So far I remain unconvinced by any of his "evidence". If I came off as harsh it may be because I spend too much time in the War Room LOL.
 
I think the biggest mistake is assuming an ancient culture would resemble ours. Not only did these civilizations not go through the specific events required to form our modern day society any culture older then 10k years would be living in a totally different world.

Imagine a world where every predator and herbivore were 10-15 times larger then their modern day counterparts.

Is that a world where human society would be so brazen? I doubt it. From my own studies I've seen a repeating pattern amongst ancient civilizations. Massive stonework towns and massive walls that stretched hundreds of kilometers.

Early man and the early civilizations that evolved in that era knew they weren't at the top of the pecking order.

When you are talking ancient civilizations with hundred kilometer walls, who do you mean? I don't know any civilization that meets that criteria.

Anyway, we know why people built walled cities. Other people. God knows they weren't worried about animals. A group of humans with pointy sticks are the most dangerous predators on the planet. People built walls to keep out other people.

This is assuming all advancement has to follow the same path, IE, the path of our current civilization from Sumer to today. You need to step outside the necessity to do things the way we have done them. Our technology is on a very specific trajectory.

You should have a look at the video @BearGrounds posted above regarding exactly how quickly the slate is wiped clean.

Also, when you say it's hard to imagine the sort of catastrophe necessary to wipe out a global civilization...it's also hard to imagine what needs to happen to make extinct half the land mega fauna on planet earth. But that's exactly what happened around 12,000 years ago. Animals that had lived for MILLIONS of years, gone in a geological flash in the backyard of what we call "history".

@BearGrounds's video points out that plastics will be there virtually forever. So we know no prior civilization produced plastics on an industrial scale.

We know they didn't use fossil fuels on any large scale, simply because there was too much easily available when we started using it.

We know they didn't use nuclear power, otherwise we would have evidence of manmade isotopes.

There is not really evidence of domestication of animals or crops prior to 10,000 BC or thereabouts, as I understand it, although I grant that it is possible every domestic species and crop was wiped out during the Younger Dryas and people just started again afterwards.

It is possible that civilization is older than we believe it to be, but setting aside theories of 'alternate technologies', there is a pretty hard cap on the kind of technology that any now unknown civilization possessed. They didn't have anything like the level of technology that we currently possess.

It's fun to speculate, and I wouldn't even be too surprised if we eventually found evidence of a culture older than the Sumerians that got smooshed by a space rock. I would be very surprised if anyone was working with metals prior to 3500 BC. I would honestly be flabbergasted if we were to discover anyone was smelting iron much prior to 1200 BC or thereabouts.
 
Going to his talk in a couple days. Been listening to him since the early days of JRE, probably 5/6 years ago. Haven't listened too much to the new shit except for his latest pod. Should be fun
 
Did you know that they have found very few skeletal remains from even 13,000 years ago?

They find tools, but very few skeletal remains.

Now imagine that they don't even look for these things in excavation sites, because they have already decided there is nothing there to look for, and you have a pretty good picture of where we are.

People say where is the evidence, and Hancock responds, "well, I might be able to show it to you, if archeologists would start looking."

I took a class on dinosaurs in my last year of uni.... more of a GPA booster than anything. Dont remember much, but I do remember that we (and I say we, as in scientists) were able to figure out the speed that a certain type of dinosaur was running in km/h based solely on its footprints and tracks. This is from millions of years ago. If we are able to figure out shit like that, where is the evidence of an advanced civilization(s) from 10,000+ to 200,000+ years ago?

Do I agree with him that modern archaeologists have the timeline fucked up and their probably existed a civilization 12,000 years ago and that some of the ancient ruins dates are wrong (gobelky Tepi). Ya I agree with him there. But how far back are we going to push this theory? Theres no evidence.

Would evidence from a civilization that old survive this long? perhaps? Perhaps not.

I'm going to his talk in a few days... should be fun
 
FYI, a bit of cursory googling shows that you don't need particularly sophisticated tools to drill stone. It's pretty clear you don't even need a metal bit.

The attached paper describes an entirely plausible neolithic method for drilling stone. The pictures of the rig used is at the bottom of the paper.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259583371_Drilling_through_stone_axes

So drilling shows that the Denisovans were, in all likelihood, as smart as modern humans, but it doesn't demonstrate a level of technology that would have baffled a neolithic hunter, and it would have looked primitive to anyone from Mesopotamia, even as early as 3000 BC.

Thanks for this, this seems a lot more plausible than Denisovians using a Dewalt cordless 40k years ago.
 
The back and forth about "Hancock's ideas" serves as misdirection about the elephant in the room here. He's never had an original idea. But continues to pay lip service to the guys doing the real research while implicitly taking the credit when interviewed. And his fans continue to be awestruck by 'his' brilliant ideas. Started way back with Fingerprints. If you want a real eye opener check out Flem-Ath's old interview buried on the Above Top Secret website. This guy published in the scientific literature about origins of agriculture- was talking about the extinctions (non-human causation) and the significance of indigenous mythology and was mentored by Charles Hapgood. He dug deep into the possibility of a lost civilization - all while Hancock was still doing coffee table books for an African dictator. Always been interested because Flem-Ath is a fellow Canadian and I read When the Sky Fell when it came out - before Fingerprints came out anywhere. Discovered the genre and have read all I could. Whatever you think about the subject matter Hancock's appropriation of the work - for hundreds of pages before crediting - is slimy. What's the chances that two writers are going to list the same four species out of thirty-eight in the same order found in a rare hard to get book. It's all in the details, as they say. Found it fascinating that in the original audio of Fingerprints Flem-Ath and his wife are completed erased from the book. Even though every other word is included. ("Text chosen by author.") Put my antenna up. Even wrote them about it. Entire Part 1 of that book is about Antarctica. From Underworld, 'I'm not looking for Atlantis. That way lies madness.' Until it's convenient. It seems to me, he takes a pin and decides where the most advantageous spot to put the lost continent is. This America Before thing seems like a clever marketing ploy. The 'species with amnesia' tag line always delivered as if it's a clever, original summation, is typical of his m.o. It's straight from Velikovsky - Mankind in Amnesia. Small but telling example. Anyway, like or dislike him, his attempts to set himself up as some kind of spiritual example lecturing to his acolytes about how to live, are inappropriate, to say the least.
he's a much better writer than any of those primary researchers you've mentioned, and he popularized their work to a vastly greater extent than would otherwise have happened. He also takes a lot of the credit for popularizing the ideas, but I don't think he's out there saying these are his original thoughts, in fact his books are full of end notes stating the contrary. I do understand what you are saying though, he is SEEN as the "inventor" of these ideas, which clearly he is not.
 
When you are talking ancient civilizations with hundred kilometer walls, who do you mean? I don't know any civilization that meets that criteria.

Anyway, we know why people built walled cities. Other people. God knows they weren't worried about animals. A group of humans with pointy sticks are the most dangerous predators on the planet. People built walls to keep out other people.



@BearGrounds's video points out that plastics will be there virtually forever. So we know no prior civilization produced plastics on an industrial scale.

We know they didn't use fossil fuels on any large scale, simply because there was too much easily available when we started using it.

We know they didn't use nuclear power, otherwise we would have evidence of manmade isotopes.

There is not really evidence of domestication of animals or crops prior to 10,000 BC or thereabouts, as I understand it, although I grant that it is possible every domestic species and crop was wiped out during the Younger Dryas and people just started again afterwards.

It is possible that civilization is older than we believe it to be, but setting aside theories of 'alternate technologies', there is a pretty hard cap on the kind of technology that any now unknown civilization possessed. They didn't have anything like the level of technology that we currently possess.

It's fun to speculate, and I wouldn't even be too surprised if we eventually found evidence of a culture older than the Sumerians that got smooshed by a space rock. I would be very surprised if anyone was working with metals prior to 3500 BC. I would honestly be flabbergasted if we were to discover anyone was smelting iron much prior to 1200 BC or thereabouts.
I think the question of plastics has to be left alone and determined to have been "invented" by our civilization in the holocene. I'm not sure I would take any mention of plastics in the Pleistocene as serious.

And I think whoever "they" were, they certainly weren't dealing in the same trajectory of technology that we were. Part of the problem with this topic seems to be the loaded words "advanced", "technology", "sophistication", etc...those are words of immense degree. There is certainly no reason to believe that history is repeating itself in the exact way we are creating it today.
 
Like I said earlier, I only have an axe to grind if Hancock really believes what he is representing is science and scholarship. If instead he is merely hustling a bunch of conspiracy minded neophytes then I have no issue and actually tip my hat to him.



I really can't believe that is your view of archaeological science. It's confusing to say the least.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeological_science

I am also echoing the work of geologists and geophysicists that have done extensive research on the Ice-Core dating of Antarctica.



There may be legitimate debate and discussion on the facets of Egyptology but it's obvious that neither you or I have the education and training to participate. I can some it up with this question, can you read ancient Egyptian Hieroglyphs and translate them into Greek? If not you may be out of your depth with Egyptology, I know I am.



Wait a minute, the Overkill Hypothesis was proposed over 40 years ago by Martin. Others were the Climate Change Hypothesis, Hyper Disease and finally Comet Hypothesis. It could have been a combination of all of them. Why do you think the Overkill was the dominant paradigm, it never made it to theory and remained a hypothesis.



If he has changed, I definitely could get over this as maybe over zealousness. Has he printed a retraction for this and Draco?



I'm not saying that earlier civilizations didn't arise, that would be foolish of me to do so. I presented a case as to why it may have taken so long and what markers we may see to help us determine if any did arise. So far I remain unconvinced by any of his "evidence". If I came off as harsh it may be because I spend too much time in the War Room LOL.
We disagree on Hancock's motives, but it's irrelevant to me and largely besides the point.

On point 2, perhaps I am lumping the most famous of archeological work (Egyptology) in with good field work done. Egyptology as it stands in the literature is generally a dogmatic religion. It's based on 19th century and early 20th century ideas. I am just going to assume you don't know what the "proofs" are for some of the assumptions made about Egypt specifically, because they are so bereft of substance in what they do assume that you're clearly uninformed if you use the line of logic "they know how to read hieroglyphics and you don't, thus they know more than you are"...99.9% of what we know has nothing to do with hieroglyphics, our understanding of their symbolic writing system is still largely considered mediocre, if not poor. Last on this, I don't mean to bash archeology or the people who do the work but their work is inherently difficult and they are largely guessing...and ideas are passed off as fact (i.e., Khufu built the great pyramid as a tomb for himself) when they are based on farcically little evidence from any normal "science" based perspective.

I'm not going to relitigate the history of Overkill, it was the dominant theory for the longest time, period...you suggesting it wasn't is not even worth discussing really. There were always other theories, Overkill was always the dominant one, based on when humans SUPPOSEDLY (now incorrectly) populated the Americas. Regardless, it is now obviously a silly idea.
 
The back and forth about "Hancock's ideas" serves as misdirection about the elephant in the room here. He's never had an original idea. But continues to pay lip service to the guys doing the real research while implicitly taking the credit when interviewed. And his fans continue to be awestruck by 'his' brilliant ideas. Started way back with Fingerprints. If you want a real eye opener check out Flem-Ath's old interview buried on the Above Top Secret website. This guy published in the scientific literature about origins of agriculture- was talking about the extinctions (non-human causation) and the significance of indigenous mythology and was mentored by Charles Hapgood. He dug deep into the possibility of a lost civilization - all while Hancock was still doing coffee table books for an African dictator. Always been interested because Flem-Ath is a fellow Canadian and I read When the Sky Fell when it came out - before Fingerprints came out anywhere. Discovered the genre and have read all I could. Whatever you think about the subject matter Hancock's appropriation of the work - for hundreds of pages before crediting - is slimy. What's the chances that two writers are going to list the same four species out of thirty-eight in the same order found in a rare hard to get book. It's all in the details, as they say. Found it fascinating that in the original audio of Fingerprints Flem-Ath and his wife are completed erased from the book. Even though every other word is included. ("Text chosen by author.") Put my antenna up. Even wrote them about it. Entire Part 1 of that book is about Antarctica. From Underworld, 'I'm not looking for Atlantis. That way lies madness.' Until it's convenient. It seems to me, he takes a pin and decides where the most advantageous spot to put the lost continent is. This America Before thing seems like a clever marketing ploy. The 'species with amnesia' tag line always delivered as if it's a clever, original summation, is typical of his m.o. It's straight from Velikovsky - Mankind in Amnesia. Small but telling example. Anyway, like or dislike him, his attempts to set himself up as some kind of spiritual example lecturing to his acolytes about how to live, are inappropriate, to say the least.

I listened to a good portion of the podcast while working in the backyard the other day and Graham stated multiple times that he's a journalist, not a scientist and gathered the information from other scientists. He even named them and gave them credit a handful of times.

I was under the impression that it was Hancock that came up with the theories but that was before I heard Hancock speak about it. If anything, he's taking the brunt of the heat away from the scientists and archaeologists that came up with the theories. I don't know about this Flem-Ath guy (would like to read that interview if you have a link) and it wouldn't surprise me at all if Graham pulled some backhanded shit because he's obviously in it for money most of all.
 
I listened to a good portion of the podcast while working in the backyard the other day and Graham stated multiple times that he's a journalist, not a scientist and gathered the information from other scientists. He even named them and gave them credit a handful of times.

I was under the impression that it was Hancock that came up with the theories but that was before I heard Hancock speak about it. If anything, he's taking the brunt of the heat away from the scientists and archaeologists that came up with the theories. I don't know about this Flem-Ath guy (would like to read that interview if you have a link) and it wouldn't surprise me at all if Graham pulled some backhanded shit because he's obviously in it for money most of all.
He has credited Rand and Rose Flemath many times, since the beginning of his work in the 90s. What you heard in that interview is indicative of how Graham has always been about his work, and yes, as a journalist he has reaped the rewards of relaying the ideas of others to the masses. The attacks on him personally are inappropriate in my opinion.
 
Back
Top