Graham Hancock being proven right all along about ancient humans in America.

I'm still waiting for society to realize Gobekli Tepe was a trade bazaar and not a religious site. That one's actually MY OWN hypothesis, so please give me credit when it's proven.
Anyway, good on Hancock I guess, and props to Jimmy Corsetti and Randall Carlson, and the REAL archaelogists.
I'm not giving any credit to any mainstream science morons who mock a hypothesis, then try to claim credit for it later.

There were plenty of discoveries that had already proven the global lost civilization theory anyway.
Just the weather erosion on the Sphynx, and ancient people themselves saying they'd discovered sites and moved into them, should have been enough to take this seriously at least, and Gobekli Tepe was clear evidence of a civilization at least 12,000 years ago. People want to split hairs on the definition of society, but, they had agriculture, mass cohabitation in at least one city, tools, art, and they had to have had language to coordinate, so I don't see how that's NOT a civilization, and that's just Gobekli.

They're bound to find something that proves the Eye of the Sahara was indeed the capital of Atlantis, and then mainstream scientists will try to take credit for that too, and pretend Jimmy Corsetti didn't exist. It's what they do.
I've half a mind to just ignore all of mainstream archaeology at this point. Hell, mainstream everything might be useless.

a reply to: schuyler

A few thousand years earlier than Europeans? Try nearly 50 thousand years earlier.

Yes, they are indigenous.

Are the Europeans indigenous to Europe?

How does the fact that Native Americans were in the America's thousands of years earlier make them less 'Native American'?

a reply to: charlyv

A shovel monkey (someone who volunteers on digs, or just got their degree 8n archeology) has surfaced more evidence on past life than Hancock has.

He simply just spends a lot of time reading other people's works and then spinning some sort of narrative around it.
It's not that he's "wrong" he just cherry picks actual sound evidence and then makes a claim similar to what other people have already brought forward, he's on par with the likes of Russel Brand.

a reply to: strongfp

Another person who probably has never read Graham's books.
Graham is famous because he is a gifted communicator, as well as a researcher.

originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: strongfp

Another person who probably has never read Graham's books.
Graham is famous because he is a gifted communicator, as well as a researcher.

He'd prefer journalist, if memory serves.

originally posted by: charlyv
Graham Hancock has been trying to convince present archeology that humans have been in the Americas for thousands of years longer than the accepted "Clovis" aged settlements of around ~13,000 years ago.

The "Clovis First" hypothesis was discarded many years ago. There's still a few who hang onto it, but the rest of the archaeological world dismissed it.

To quote from Wikipedia,
This hypothesis came to be challenged by ongoing studies that suggest pre-Clovis human occupation of the Americas.[66] In 2011, following the excavation of an occupation site at Buttermilk Creek, Texas, a group of scientists identified the existence "of an occupation older than Clovis."[24][67] At the site in Buttermilk, archaeologists discovered evidence of hunter-gatherer group living and the making of projectile spear points, blades, choppers, and other stone tools. The tools found were made from a local chert and could be dated back to as early as 15,000 years ago.

I think the Wikipedia article is a bit out of date; I remember challenges to it in the academic world dating to before 2011. I've seen dates as early as 30,000 years ago.

a reply to: CoyoteAngels

I agree....some other similar posts were also disappointing to read. There's no oral history about a long journey or origin from Asia. There's nothing like that in Asian history either. The land bridge would have been at least 100 miles long and 20k in elevation of glacier ice and artic conditions.

The rich history of advanced ocean navigation throughout the Pacific is where they come from, or you take all the tribes origin stories as fact. All the indigenous people of the Pacific and America's are related. Lots of evidence to support this.

originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: strongfp

Another person who probably has never read Graham's books.
Graham is famous because he is a gifted communicator, as well as a researcher.

A 'gifted communicator'? You are having a laugh. That dude's whiny voice and perpetual victim status is the kiss of death to any subject.

He is nothing more than a fringe 'academic' riding a popular wave. I did read Fingerprints of the Gods back in the day and when all is said and done he is a one trick pony with nothing new to offer. I say 'let Gobekli be his swan song', and he can disappear into the sunset.

a reply to: charlyv

I've read two of his books.
Fingerprints of the gods, and America before. Both gave absolutely nothing in the slightest the vibe of an actual report or even presenting evidence beyond just making grand hypothesis off the backs of what other people have found.

The part that I didn't like about his works is that he comes up with the narrative: "there was a grand civilization before what 'mainstream' science tells us". And then pieces together evidence from bronze age and early agricultural settlements and trys to convince the reader that's the key... the ironic thing is he literally uses "mainstream" archaeology and science to make his grand assumptions.

a reply to: game over man

Egyptians could have easily sailed to the new world. It's been demonstrated by a sailor named Thor Hyderdal, or something like that. He navigated a model of an Egyptian ship to show it could be done.

But that would have been much later.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: charlyv

There may have been a landmass in the Pacific.

Continent of Mu?


But that's a bit out there still.

Mu was not a continent as such, but rather the global civilization of the time (before Atlantis succeeded it). "Mu" is just the name given to it by some contemporary researchers (such as Churchward - Haeckel, a 19th century scientist, called it Lemuria).

It was not just located in the Pacific, it was more like a belt of small and large islands spanning almost the whole globe but maybe more centered in the Pacific region, before the American continent as we know it today even existed.

sacred-texts.com... has some interesting sources.

There are maps drawn by Rosicrucians and/or Theosophists in the 19th century, contained in one of the books on Atlantis and Lemuria you'll find there.

originally posted by: CoyoteAngels
a reply to: game over man

Egyptians could have easily sailed to the new world. It's been demonstrated by a sailor named Thor Hyderdal, or something like that. He navigated a model of an Egyptian ship to show it could be done.

But that would have been much later.

Thor Heyerdahl, a Norwegian. He wrote a book about the voyage of the Kon-Tiki, as he had named his boat built only of what ancient Egyptians would have used. That way he may have proved Egyptians could have crossed the Atlantic Ocean.

He was a scientist, not a sailor.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: charlyv

I've read two of his books.
Fingerprints of the gods, and America before. Both gave absolutely nothing in the slightest the vibe of an actual report or even presenting evidence beyond just making grand hypothesis off the backs of what other people have found.

The part that I didn't like about his works is that he comes up with the narrative: "there was a grand civilization before what 'mainstream' science tells us". And then pieces together evidence from bronze age and early agricultural settlements and trys to convince the reader that's the key... the ironic thing is he literally uses "mainstream" archaeology and science to make his grand assumptions.

Why shouldn't he use it? IF it's valid data, why shoud he ignore or reject them?

He just draws conclusions different from those of mainstream science, that's all. Maybe because he never was a career scientist who has to toe the line or else....

He has ventured into territories that would have caused a mainstream scientist to be ostracized and get their career and reputation destroyed. No scientist wants that!

Do you have an actual argument to show his "narrative" is wrong?

originally posted by: midicon

originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: strongfp

Another person who probably has never read Graham's books.
Graham is famous because he is a gifted communicator, as well as a researcher.

A 'gifted communicator'? You are having a laugh. That dude's whiny voice and perpetual victim status is the kiss of death to any subject.

He is nothing more than a fringe 'academic' riding a popular wave. I did read Fingerprints of the Gods back in the day and when all is said and done he is a one trick pony with nothing new to offer. I say 'let Gobekli be his swan song', and he can disappear into the sunset.

Hancock does have his detractors... and you are making this quite obvious.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: charlyv

A shovel monkey (someone who volunteers on digs, or just got their degree 8n archeology) has surfaced more evidence on past life than Hancock has.

He simply just spends a lot of time reading other people's works and then spinning some sort of narrative around it.
It's not that he's "wrong" he just cherry picks actual sound evidence and then makes a claim similar to what other people have already brought forward, he's on par with the likes of Russel Brand.

You have your reasons for trying to discredit Hancock.

What you are disparagingly and dismissively calling "spending a lot of time reading other people's work" could also be called INVESTIGATING.

Where else are you going to find information? As for field research, I understand Graham Hancock has been in many places all over the world (correct me if I am mistaken).

originally posted by: TheValeyard
I'm still waiting for society to realize Gobekli Tepe was a trade bazaar and not a religious site.

That one's actually MY OWN hypothesis, so please give me credit when it's proven.
Anyway, good on Hancock I guess, and props to Jimmy Corsetti and Randall Carlson, and the REAL archaelogists.
I'm not giving any credit to any mainstream science morons who mock a hypothesis, then try to claim credit for it later.

There were plenty of discoveries that had already proven the global lost civilization theory anyway.
Just the weather erosion on the Sphynx, and ancient people themselves saying they'd discovered sites and moved into them, should have been enough to take this seriously at least, and Gobekli Tepe was clear evidence of a civilization at least 12,000 years ago. People want to split hairs on the definition of society, but, they had agriculture, mass cohabitation in at least one city, tools, art, and they had to have had language to coordinate, so I don't see how that's NOT a civilization, and that's just Gobekli.

They're bound to find something that proves the Eye of the Sahara was indeed the capital of Atlantis, and then mainstream scientists will try to take credit for that too, and pretend Jimmy Corsetti didn't exist. It's what they do.
I've half a mind to just ignore all of mainstream archaeology at this point. Hell, mainstream everything might be useless.

That famous "eye of the Sahara" is not Atlantis. Remember, Plato said specifically "BEYOND" the pillars of Hercules. Not "south of Egypt" or anything of the sort. It was located in the Atlantic and Plato did describe it as such. The eye of the Sahara is just more distraction.

BTW, just a detail. Places in Turkey containing "tepe" in their names are hills or mountains.

Now think of the Popocatepetl, the volcano close to the lake where Technochtitlan was built by the Aztecs.

Popoca-tepetl. The "tl" is a single letter in the Aztec language.

a reply to: YourExcellency

Cant he be both a scientist AND a sailor? Seems he did a pretty good job sailing a primative ship.

ANd I believe it was called Ra. Kon Tiki left from someplace else.

a reply to: YourExcellency

The 'eye of the Sahara' is not south of Egypt. Its a bit SE of the Pillars and Morocco.

originally posted by: Mahogany

originally posted by: schuyler
In other words, Native Americans aren't. They aren't Native to the Americas. They aren't "indigenous." They simply got here a few thousand years before the Europeans. The Clovis People were latecomers to the party. That ought to go over well with current politically correct meme.

No, it actually most likely means that the Native American ancestors who came from Asia, maybe have arrived 10,000 years earlier than we thought.

Some of the NA ancestors, such as the Clovis People, have been dated back to about 13,000 years ago on what is now USA. They came here, remained here, and became/evolved into what we call Native Americans today.

It's an astonishing discovery anyway, just looking at how the human race developed, but if it's true it could possibly give the Native Americans a claim 10,000 years older. Clovis people may have come from these earlier travelers.

Pretty cool!

I think it is very likely that some of the Native Americans (not all of them) are indeed indigenous to the Americas.

It fits the Atlantis hypothesis. Atlantis supposedly existed from around 5 million years ago up about 12,000 years ago, when its last remnant (the isladnd Plato called Poseidonia or Poseidonis) was destroyed.

They are what is known as the "copper-colored" race or people and consider themselves as such - the "copper-colored race". Five million years ago north and south America did not yet exist but needless to say there were other landmasses there at the time that were more or less connected to the main continent we are calling Atlantis, and their ancestors would have been the 2nd sub-race (the term Blavatsky was using at the time and called Tlavatli for some reason) of the Atlantean civilization, which in total encompassed 7 successive sub-races...

Scott-Elliot, Donnelly, and Lewis Spence are some interesting authors, you'll find them on sacred-texts.

Rudolf Steiner and Helena Blavatsky are more esotericist sources