Thoughts On Graham Hancock?

Personally, he's been my favorite personality and author on this subject since I was a child (I'm 30 now) and I've always enjoyed his theories and for the most part, I agree with him because I also have always thought civilization was far older than we assume it is currently. I think he was always looked at as an alternative journalist/theorist on history, but it appears a lot of what he first put forth in Fingerprints of the Gods is starting to become less alternative theory and more mainstream as more and more archaeologists and scientists are starting to agree with what he's been saying for many years. Just curious to know others' opinion on him.

Love him! Really interesting guy. His podcasts with Joe Rogan were great to listen to.

Graham Hancock is a man searching for the answers that mainstream so called experts try to hide from the public because it upsets their mainstream paradigm of their world. You must understand that the majority of these experts specialise in their chosen fields so cannot see the overall dynamics of the whole world ie they may only visit or excavate a few sites in their lifetimes and rely on peer papers for other views than their pet subject and as ALWAYS happens they will back their peers over all others. Hence the major failure of the peer review situation. Yet Graham has visited and investigated more sites around the world than these experts and arrived at more creditable theories than the mainstream. He gives you the known facts and you can see that the mainstream theory is sadly lacking. He knows it and so do they but they will not give up because their reputations have been based on their lies. More power to Graham Hancock. I would say that my one wish would be to sit and have a serious discussion with him for a few hours.

I wish he wouldn't waffle so much when he writes his books.

Graham Hancock.... The guy from the 'mysterious' face on Mars???? That spoilt any credibility he might have had for me.

I think what should be understood about researchers like Graham and others is, they have a lot more wiggle room to speculate and hypothesize than mainstream scientists do. I'm not saying the mainstream never speculates. They do, but their speculation is based on established probabilities in the various fields having to do with historical science.

The peer review process most certainly has its issues. I authored a thread on some of those issues. However, until someone comes up with a better process, it's the only process we have that at least attempts to keep science honest, and not given to flights of fancy based on nothing but possibilities and guess work.

I like Graham. I think he's done a good job at introducing alternative ideas into the mix. What he and others do is needed in the world of academia. It helps to keep our sciences from becoming a religion, and our scientists from becoming priests in charge of an inquisition in search of historical heretics. Though admittedly, some of that happens anyway.

He seems pretty sincere. His biggest problem is that he has essentially no solid evidence to support his theory of a large global culture that dates back before the Younger Dryas. Of course, it's hard to determine the dates of big monoliths, and other kinds of artifacts are going to decay away after 12,000 years. But he really has nothing definitive to show for it. But, hey. Doesn't hurt to look around, right?

originally posted by: Hellhound604
Graham Hancock.... The guy from the 'mysterious' face on Mars???? That spoilt any credibility he might have had for me.

I think you're thinking of Richard Hoagland, although Hancock has probably done some speculating in that regard also. I give Hancock the benefit of the doubt, though, that when proven wrong about a specific thing, he'll admit it and move on.

I like the fact that he puts forth an alternative view on human history, and even some regarding our evolution in which he proposes that psychadelic plants had something to do with the evolution of our brains. Although I am rather skeptical towards his theories considering that even though his ideas are interesting, he rarely (if ever) provide any solid evidence to support them. Most of the time, I find that the established scientific community makes better arguments, as well as provide more convincing evidence, then he does.

The difference is that scientists check the data, and write theories that fit the data. Whereas researchers like Hancock rather try to make the data fit their theories.

It would be awesome however if evidence came up that showed, beyond any reasonable doubt, that there once had been a global civilization previously unknown to science. I doubt that such evidence will appear though...

a reply to: MadhatterTheGreat

I like the guy and believe in the subject myself, he seem's to genuinely believe it too and though like any author he is driven to write about it his evidence so far has been presented with non of the Von Daniken'esque corruption of the fact's, he also often point's out the other side of the arguement when given enough space to do so.
I admire the guy and robert bauval, john grigsby as well.

a reply to: Blue Shift

Well, that's kind of the thing though.

If we simply continue to expect 'rock-solid' physical evidence on a matter like this, we may never truly get the answer. Look at it already, we have some massive gaps in our 200,000 year history as 'modern man' where transitionary evidence has evidently largely been lost.

When evidence is lost like that, you HAVE to apply critical thinking to reach the answers. Take the Tomb of Jonah for example. It was recently completely blown from this Earth by ISIS. It NO LONGER EXISTS.

The only way a future generation in 3000 years time will EVER be able to deduce that a Tomb of Jonah actually existed would be through the use of careful analysis of historical secondary evidence.

In that same sense, we might just be in a similar scenario. We actually have a ridiculously large amount of sacred and ancient texts and traditions relating to a massive catastrophic event that had destroyed most of the PREVIOUS civilisation.

We have evidence of GOLD MINING at 30,000 BC. We have one-off, amazingly well sculpted 'Lion-man' statuette from around 40,000 BC.

We have some settlements in 80,000 BC. Domestication in 12,000 to 8,000 BC. Massive flood around 14,000 to 12,000 BC. Megalithic structures at 10,000 BC, not followed again for 1,000s of years. Cave paintings 10,000s of years apart.

We had gold in abundance, one of the Earth's rarest and most widely spread elements. Out of the 7 metals of antiquity, it is the one we should've had least of. Establishing a gold mine is NOT simple work either lol.

We also know the Earth can pretty much swallow massive amounts of evidence of previous civilisations within a relatively short span of a couple thousand years. With the human desire of destruction, even quicker than that.

We may never have the privilege of finding much out about our complete history through a primary, smoking-gun singular piece of evidence. Past a certain time back, we may genuinely be left with just some jigsaw pieces and nothing more.

In that sense, we really do need more people like Hancock, who I think is a great man actually.

But I do fully agree with you that humanity will probably require some ridiculous form of undoubtable smoking-gun tangible evidence before subscribing to this on a whole.

Perhaps we should start searching the sea much more. Unfortunately, just as we speak my friend, evidence of our history is being destroyed.

Estimates put the numbers at 10,000s if not 100,000s of tablets, figurines and cylinder seals from the most ancient of true civilizations - the Sumerians/first mesopotamians - have been destroyed by military activity and groups like ISIS.

This tablet source include ones like the story of Gilgamesh which practically completely mirrors the story of Noah's Ark but at least 3,000 years earlier! These things are extremely important to deciphering a full picture of our past and yet once they're gone - they're gone.

I'm afraid we might actually be left with nothing but scraps of our true history at this point.

a reply to: MadhatterTheGreat

I like him.

When i first saw him on the TV years ago, i initially thought he was a bit pompous, kind of arrogant and conceited. Reminded me a of a teacher or lecturer for some reason.

But i like what he says, how he says it and presents the information and ideas he shares. I'm interested in almost everything he's done TV and novel wise, and find the subject matter he talks about broadly parallel to my own long held opinions and intuitions.

a reply to: DazDaKing

Its sad but true. People stick their heads in the sand because they can't accept they have been lied to, or because their lies are exposed and can't face reality. And worse of all, those who know it is real, and purposely hide or control the knowledge for their own personal gain. So much of our history has been destroyed for selfish and ignorant reasons. It is nothing new though, human nature will never change.

I have enjoyed his work a great deal. My copy of Fingerprints of the Gods is almost wore out from all the reading and travel it has seen. I would also have to agree that a lot of his theories lack some of the evidence that mainstream science requires in order to be for it to be accepted. I try to keep a open mind about our lost history and think that there is much that we don't understand and mankind is foolish to believe that history is 100% correct.

I also enjoy his TV work as well, he seems to bring a fresh approach to many subjects. He will also admit when he is wrong and that's a lot more than most will do.

Modern day Erich Von Daniken.

I loved the book about the Ark of the covenant, in fact I lent that one out and it inspired my pal to do a degree in Archaeology.
Not sure If it is all BS or not but it sure felt like he was a little bit Indiana Jones and it was a great read.

a reply to: boymonkey74

You are talking about The Sign and the Seal. Yes its a great read, its the first one of his books that I read and I was hooked after that.

a reply to: rogue7573

Yeah thats the one on the back I loved that pic of the Blind Monk dude and it saying "no one knows the truth but this man!".
Great stuff...
Oh my pal whom took the degree is now a documentary producer with the BBC and he is trying to get to work with the guy and If he does I may be able to meet him .

Hancock - Nice stories but their far to short of fact and logic to be believed.

We have learned from the civilizations that we know exist just how much stuff civilizations leave behind - his global civilization somehow left nothing.

Interesting.

When he first heard about the underwater monument at Yonaguni Japan he decided to learn how to dive so he could explore it with his wife. What they found down there is amazing –

s29.postimg.org...

s29.postimg.org...

Gallery