Graham Hancock

A

Anonymous

Guest
#1
[Emp editL This is the main Hancock thread - see this one for discussion of his Supernatural book:

www.forteantimes.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=25629 ]

Watched a TV programme about Graham Hancock's theories concerning pre-ancient civilizations that he believes built the pyramids, lived in Atlantis, had extraterrestrial origins and prophesied a global calamity to hit us in the (guess what) near future.
That's the long and short of it, anyway. I remember reading his "Fingerprints of The Gods" book and putting it down very disappointed. My conclusions (please note, I am not an archaeologist and know very little about ancient civilizations) were:

1. He's saying nothing that Von Daniken and others like him didn't say.

2. Like his speculative predecessors, he gives us no more answers.

3. Many of the Ooparts (out of place artifacts) are simply NOT spaceships. For example, one famous little stone carving looks like a spacecraft because its "wings" are at the base of its body, not the top, like a bird. This piece is merely a stone rendering of a fish - not a bird. I've seen the fish and the artifact is a perfect copy.

4. The Nazca lines - what are they? "Don't know" seems to equate to alien landing strips. Same goes for those Inca paintings that look like a pilot inside a cockpit.

5. A slipping of the earths surface (15000 years ago, I can't quite remember) buried all evidence of this superb race of civilized teachers. These same people, that were wiped out by ice falling from the North Pole, flew around in spaceships, built the pyramids, Stone Henge, you name it; but were taken totally and completely by surprise and obliterated as a result.

Does the ancient world really contain such magnificent mysteries? What, if anything remains unsolved, as far as ancient historical feats go (pyramid building and the like)?

Let's cut through all the BS, and get some facts before the nonsense buries us all, or would that be the coming ice age - I better go check my Aztec astronaut superclock, scratch myself some pointless spider lines and get my levitating megalith gear ready!
 

rynner2

Great Old One
Joined
Aug 7, 2001
Messages
55,245
Likes
8,973
Points
284
#2
I guess that must have been an old programme. His most recent series shown on TV here was about ancient civilizations, most of which were submerged when sea levels rose after the last Ice Age, but there were no ancient astronauts or other extreme stuff. (See the Flooded Kingdoms thread for comments -Flooded Kingdoms )
 

harlequin2005

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 3, 2001
Messages
824
Likes
9
Points
49
#4
Was GH ever hung up with Ancient Astronauts? I thought that was more ALford and Stitchen's bag... Hankcock seems more vedic than that

8¬)
 

intaglio

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Oct 14, 2001
Messages
1,592
Likes
21
Points
69
#5
I've just read the book and posted a review in another thread. Basically it is weak except that the innundation data he obtained makes fascinating reading. Unfortunately for him the best evidence of paleocivilisations was obtained after printing by the discoveries off the Indian/Pakistan coast in the Gulf of Cambay.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#6
Gotta say that the association made with Von Daniken is unfair. Almost every curical piece of evidence that Von Dankien mentioned was later debunked by none other than Colin Wilson.

Where as Hancock does engage in speculation that often is tenuous ast best, his evidence is generally good, with the exception of the constellation Drak0 (The Dragon?) in the temples of Ankor Wat.

However, I think in his new series about the flood, his basic hypothesis is sound and the Indian Shelf discoveries are truly amazing. And I would have to say that the series is presented by a much chastened Hancock.

All in all he is not the worst by any means me thinks

LD
 
F

FraterLibre

Guest
#7
You're In Good Hands With Hancock

I'd agree that Hancock is much chastened, and his work is improved for it. And perhaps his relatively brief excursion into Ancient Astronaut theory was necessary to loosen his thinking enough to allow it to include other, more directly testable and reasonable ideas that are, nevertheless, excluded from and by mainstream archaeology. The sunken coastal cities are a prime example, one that's proving exciting with recent discoveries.

Also, even at his nuttiest, Hancock's books are models of a readable tone and thorough citations. This alone contrasts Von Daniken's nonsense sharply.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#8
I agree, FraterLibre, I think he has returned more to his journalistic routes as was een in The Sign and the Seal.

LD
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
#9
My big problem with Hancock is that he makes propositions,eg the great pyramids age,without exhaustively researching the subject first,publishing then retracting ideas,and blandly throwing off with the statement Im a writer not an scientist.Yes he is a writer,but Im a bit sick of his ideas evolving over the course of years,him writing and retracting,backtracking and us paying for it.
 
F

FraterLibre

Guest
#10
Consider the Source

Bottom line is, he sells books that way, and isn't in the business of being right, only of being interesting. And he certainly is that, along with provocative, stimulating, and, of all things, honest.

And after all, there is no such things as an end to research. Continually revising is exactly what science does, too.

As to paying for it, borrow from libraries.
 

DerekH16

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
867
Likes
10
Points
49
#11
Re: Consider the Source

FraterLibre said:
.......Continually revising is exactly what science does, too......
The difference being that scientific (or any academic) research is peer-reviewed before publication.

Mr Hancock may do research, but he doesn't always seem to be too academically rigorous about it, and (peer) review doesn't happen until publication, when he then says 'Oh, yes, I seem to be wrong there - sorry - but the rest still holds true.' (And yes, I agree, he's selling books.......)

Certainly better researched and written than Von D (although 'Fingerprints of the Gods' struck me as Von D-ish - 'here's a remote possibility' becomes 'it's probable that' becomes 'we have seen that' becomes 'fact'), but, IMHO, not as good as John G Fuller, for example, who keeps his opinions out of the mix, or states them as such.
 
F

FraterLibre

Guest
#12
Show Biz

I concur, Fuller is very good at reporting without editorializing.

My expectations for any of these books falls well short of what I'd expect from science, though. This is, at root, entertainment.
 

Mattattattatt

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Sep 17, 2001
Messages
509
Likes
3
Points
49
#13
Hancock does the usual thing: he has an unfounded hypothesis, which he tries to make less unfounded by picking and choosing bits around him to make it look good, like the 10,500 year thing.

Mr Potato Head science. Take what is there and arrange it in a way that looks interesting.
 

Breakfastologist

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jul 31, 2001
Messages
920
Likes
17
Points
49
#14
It comes across as one of the problems of human mental processing- rather than looking at a set of evidence and deriving a theory from it, people prefer to have a theory and look for evidence for it well past the point where they have seen evidence which directly disproves it. Various studies have shown this to be how people work and Hancock seems to have a bit of a penchant for it.

To be honest, its kind of what you expect from authors in this area, and it affects conventional archaeologists exactly as much (and everyone else, of course- I'm more worried that my Doctor does it than that Hancock does) and most scientific leaps in any area have been as much about lucky guesses that then fit the evidence as "good science".
 

JamesWhitehead

Piffle Prospector
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
12,529
Likes
9,870
Points
309
#17
No need to apologise but this wonderful Board has a useful Search Engine - I
found 36 threads mentioning Graham Hancock. Among them this:

(disabled link - stu)

None on Tony so far, alas! :(

Right about what, incidentally? GH seems to have retracted his earlier
and more grandiose theories but I'm awaiting the day he announces refunds
for those who bought into his schtick. :rolleyes:
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
11,446
Likes
4,165
Points
234
#18
Stone me!

Thank you James :). Have merged the new thread into the old one as found.
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
48,813
Likes
20,871
Points
284
Location
Eblana
#20
And the Hancock half(cocked) hour continues.

Graham Hancock Says He Now Believes in Conscious Universe and Reincarnation

... This past weekend, Hancock announced that he now believes in reincarnation: “Maybe we are meat robots, all matter, no spirit. A lot of people believe that. But its only a belief, not a fact. I think we’re all spirit and these bodies are the avatars we need to function in the material realm. Reincarnation makes a lot of sense to me.”

It is clear that Hancock sees himself as a spiritual guru in the making, and now he has a dogma to complement his theology. Over the past few years, he has described how he has come to believe that divine beings lurk on the other side of the veil of consciousness, gods accessible through drug use, particularly the herb ayahuasca. But now this belief in a polytheistic pantheon is tied to a pantheistic belief that the universe itself is a divine agent and invested in each individual’s spiritual development: “Why would the universe invest in creating this incredible ride if we only get one chance to learn the lessons it teaches? I think we come back, again, and again, and again until, maybe, finally… we get it.” Basically, Hancock is now a Buddhist with occult and hippie tendencies.

I am somewhat intrigued by the notion Hancock has developed of a teleological purpose to existence. While, yes, this is a common enough philosophical conceit, it also seems to reflect the same set of faulty ideas he brings to his study of ancient civilizations. He genuinely seems to have difficulty with randomness, chance, and fallowness. He, for example, finds it impossible to believe that humans could live a hundred thousand years without constructing cities filled with high technology, and in this light, it becomes obvious that the reason for this is that he believes that humanity has a specific purpose. And if that teleological purpose is to achieve a certain level of culture, then it is inevitable that he must project that into the past. ...

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/g...ieves-in-conscious-universe-and-reincarnation
 

Xanatic*

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Mar 10, 2015
Messages
3,304
Likes
2,705
Points
154
#21
Yesterday I visited Tiwanaka in Bolivia. I met The Dude there who told me that Hancock has suggested the site might date from 12,000 BC. Sounds unlikely.
 

XEPER_

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
705
Likes
689
Points
99
#22
And the Hancock half(cocked) hour continues.

Graham Hancock Says He Now Believes in Conscious Universe and Reincarnation

... This past weekend, Hancock announced that he now believes in reincarnation: “Maybe we are meat robots, all matter, no spirit. A lot of people believe that. But its only a belief, not a fact. I think we’re all spirit and these bodies are the avatars we need to function in the material realm. Reincarnation makes a lot of sense to me.”

It is clear that Hancock sees himself as a spiritual guru in the making, and now he has a dogma to complement his theology. Over the past few years, he has described how he has come to believe that divine beings lurk on the other side of the veil of consciousness, gods accessible through drug use, particularly the herb ayahuasca. But now this belief in a polytheistic pantheon is tied to a pantheistic belief that the universe itself is a divine agent and invested in each individual’s spiritual development: “Why would the universe invest in creating this incredible ride if we only get one chance to learn the lessons it teaches? I think we come back, again, and again, and again until, maybe, finally… we get it.” Basically, Hancock is now a Buddhist with occult and hippie tendencies.

I am somewhat intrigued by the notion Hancock has developed of a teleological purpose to existence. While, yes, this is a common enough philosophical conceit, it also seems to reflect the same set of faulty ideas he brings to his study of ancient civilizations. He genuinely seems to have difficulty with randomness, chance, and fallowness. He, for example, finds it impossible to believe that humans could live a hundred thousand years without constructing cities filled with high technology, and in this light, it becomes obvious that the reason for this is that he believes that humanity has a specific purpose. And if that teleological purpose is to achieve a certain level of culture, then it is inevitable that he must project that into the past. ...

http://www.jasoncolavito.com/blog/g...ieves-in-conscious-universe-and-reincarnation
I think he's been smoking too much weed, plus he also nearly died recently so no wonder he's become more spiritual.
I liked his last book, the audio version was a good listen.
 

Jim

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Jan 19, 2016
Messages
957
Likes
957
Points
94
Location
NYS, USA
#23
I think he's been smoking too much weed, plus he also nearly died recently so no wonder he's become more spiritual.
I liked his last book, the audio version was a good listen.
After reviewing the writing -lectures of Hancock I drought weather even the best of weed in strong enough to induce such 1/2 baked theories (IMO). Perhaps strong LSD could do it.
 

Amoradala

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
273
Likes
420
Points
69
#27
A wonderful and thought provoking speaker.
I have great affection and respect for Graham and his work.
 

INT21

Antediluvian
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
6,709
Likes
5,278
Points
279
#28
I guess that must have been an old programme. His most recent series shown on TV here was about ancient civilizations, most of which were submerged when sea levels rose after the last Ice Age, but there were no ancient astronauts or other extreme stuff. (See the Flooded Kingdoms thread for comments -Flooded Kingdoms )
The thing worth remembering about flooded kingdoms.is that they didn't flood overnight.

Florida and it's adjacent states are probably going to gradually go under water in the next century or so, but it won't lead to a catastrophic loss of life. People will just move further inland.

INT21.
 

Amoradala

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Nov 23, 2013
Messages
273
Likes
420
Points
69
#29
There is geological evidence that catastrophic floods DID happen overnight.
The sudden melting of ice caps due to sudden superheating from comet impact.
 

INT21

Antediluvian
Joined
Jul 18, 2016
Messages
6,709
Likes
5,278
Points
279
#30
Have you ever heard of the' latent heat of ice' ?

The heat necessary to cause instantaneous melting of even a decent sized iceberg would be sufficient to kill everything for many miles around. We are talking dinosaur extinction type events.
 
Top