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

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: YourExcellency

12,000 years and breeding with natives from South America sure could explain a lot of the differences. I believe there was a native population in the Americas before the migration.

I don't think there was a lot of miscenegation between north American and south American natives.

Yes, I do believe there were indigenous Amerindians, I explained it.

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: charlyv

snip

Hancock hasn't been right about anything concerning the ancient past. Nor has he conducted research.
One thing he IS right about is the naivete and gullibility of the uneducated. His income depends entirely on the ignorance of his public. It's a direct relationship. When the ignorance is higher, so is his paycheck. When lower, he loses money.

Harte

Surely you realize that such a sweeping statement can't be correct.

Harte isn’t here for debate with anyone mate, so don’t bother engaging with him- he’s a pseudo academic who uses the royal ‘we’ when talking about mainstream archaeology , of which he dreams of being part of .
He likes to derail threads with one sentence statements rarely backed up by any literature .

He will simply say things like “ Graham Hancock is a liar and a fraud “ and it’s only done to rile you , he may believe it , but he just likes to pretend that his opinion carries more weight than yours , which it doesn’t .

You will never change his opinion, neither should you bother trying to, just treat him as the guy on here who disagrees with you, and you’ll be fine;
Don’t treat Harte (and his rude sycophant Hans) as some form of hurdle you have to ‘defeat’ to be correct - that’s his modus operandi , yet he is as much of a nobody in this field as any of us .

Btw, Hancock’s bibliographies in his books are vast ,and if you follow this data , it’s quite easy to see how Hancock’s opinions and lines of questioning arise from.

I would nearly put money on Harte having not read a recent Hancock book, or its bibliographies .
Shame Harte or his sycophant Hans cant write a best selling book debunking him, everyone would buy it, wouldn’t they , if it was true?? Lol … No book though from the pseudo-academic, he’s much safer behind his keyboard than putting opinion into the public domain for criticism.
a reply to: YourExcellency

a reply to: bluesfreak
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.

originally posted by: YourExcellency

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: YourExcellency

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?

If that's your position, you might wonder why he ignores any other evidence that shows he's completely wrong?
None of that seems to make it into his books.
Why would that be?
What is he afraid of?

Harte

What evidence shows he's completely wrong?

Hancock completely ignored the fact that the relief carving on Pakal's sarcophagus lid was completely explained in Maya glyphs right there on the walls of the burial chamber.
So did Von Daniken, whom Hancock was parroting, but EVD at least had the excuse that Mayan wasn't fully understood when he first wrote that claim. It was when Hancock parroted it.
Hancock parroted EVD (and others) concerning the "flash-frozen" mammoths as well, leaving out that the "tropical" plant found in the mammoth's stomach was arctic buttercup, and utterly ignoring the established fact that the frozen mammoths he claimed all froze at once were actually tens of thousands of years apart in age.
In his most recent book concerning some lost ubercivilization in the Americas, he finally gives up and states plainly that he will not support the claims he makes and doesn't see the need to.

Hartfe

originally posted by: YourExcellency

originally posted by: Harte

originally posted by: charlyv

snip

Hancock hasn't been right about anything concerning the ancient past. Nor has he conducted research.
One thing he IS right about is the naivete and gullibility of the uneducated. His income depends entirely on the ignorance of his public. It's a direct relationship. When the ignorance is higher, so is his paycheck. When lower, he loses money.

Harte

Surely you realize that such a sweeping statement can't be correct.

Yes it can, and it is.
Note that anything correct that comes out of Hancock's mouth involves work that was done by someone else, so he's not even "right" about that - himself. Someone else is.
Everything that comes from Hancock (and no one else) is completely false and incorrect. He's never been right about a single thing.

Harte

originally posted by: bluesfreak
Harte isn’t here for debate with anyone mate, so don’t bother engaging with him- he’s a pseudo academic who uses the royal ‘we’ when talking about mainstream archaeology , of which he dreams of being part of .
He likes to derail threads with one sentence statements rarely backed up by any literature .

He will simply say things like “ Graham Hancock is a liar and a fraud “ and it’s only done to rile you , he may believe it , but he just likes to pretend that his opinion carries more weight than yours , which it doesn’t .

Wouldn't you say then that it's odd that I just gave you two examples of Hancock lying and being a fraud?
What, is your threshold three examples?

originally posted by: bluesfreak
You will never change his opinion, neither should you bother trying to, just treat him as the guy on here who disagrees with you, and you’ll be fine;

You or anyone else could change my opinion instantly, if you could point out any evidence that Hancock (himself) was right.
Obviously, since I know FAR more about the subject than you do, I'm not gonna be swayed by you mouthing your opinion, given that it is basically worthless.

originally posted by: bluesfreakDon’t treat Harte (and his rude sycophant Hans) as some form of hurdle you have to ‘defeat’ to be correct - that’s his modus operandi , yet he is as much of a nobody in this field as any of us .

It's telling that you consider evidence to be some difficult "hurdle."
That makes you look like you PREFER to remain ignorant.

originally posted by: bluesfreak
I would nearly put money on Harte having not read a recent Hancock book, or its bibliographies .
Shame Harte or his sycophant Hans cant write a best selling book debunking him, everyone would buy it, wouldn’t they , if it was true?? Lol … No book though from the pseudo-academic, he’s much safer behind his keyboard than putting opinion into the public domain for criticism.

The job has already been done. Why would I try to get a book published about Hancock's lies?
People write books to sell, you know.
You want me to self-publish (like the YDIH clowns did - created their own journal because their work couldn't pass peer review?)
You seem to hold a "book" in high esteem.
Guess you're a big fan of Scott Creighton.
Let me know when you chase down the evidence that the pyramids were storage facilities.

Harte

Wouldn't you say then that it's odd that I just gave you two examples of Hancock lying and being a fraud? What, is your threshold three examples?

Give ALL the examples if you’ve read all his books, and not using ‘other people’s work’ to do so .
You’ve been wrong about many things on here. Lucky for you that you aren’t published, eh?
Still bet you haven’t read a recent one or referenced the bibliography .

ou or anyone else could change my opinion instantly, if you could point out any evidence that Hancock (himself) was right. Obviously, since I know FAR more about the subject than you do, I'm not gonna be swayed by you mouthing your opinion, given that it is basically worthless.

A typical Harte layout. Your opinion is as worthless as mine , from a pseudo-academic, never published , never peer reviewed , who parrots others evidence himself and didn’t do the actual work .

It's telling that you consider evidence to be some difficult "hurdle." That makes you look like you PREFER to remain ignorant.

You set yourself up as the hurdle on here , a self-proclaimed guardian of the truth . Self proclaimed . Not installed.

Text The job has already been done. Why would I try to get a book published about Hancock's lies? People write books to sell, you know.

Exactly . Surely one full of so much knowledge and truths such as yours would sell like wildfire wouldn’t it?
Oh hang on, you might need a decent editor to edit out the vitriol you vomit out about anyone else’s opinion .

You want me to self-publish (like the YDIH clowns did - created their own journal because their work couldn't pass peer review?)

Yes I do.. because that’s where you belong .

You seem to hold a "book" in high esteem.

Indeed I do . Hancocks bibliographies are huge , very well referenced , the info findable and checkable, except you wouldn’t know that,I’ll almost bet you having not read any, as you’d never give him your money ,or be seen asking to borrow a copy , you just parrot work done by someone else on the internet who also hates the man.

Guess you're a big fan of Scott Creighton. Let me know when you chase down the evidence that the pyramids were storage facilities

Nope. Not a ‘fan’.
A typical Harte ‘leaving flourish’ , an accusation , a forced question irrelevant to the discussion , designed to annoy and deflect .
Same tactics I’ve seen for two decades from this academic pretender.







reply to: Harte

a reply to: Harte

It is distressing to witness an ATS member with so much time in here, having an attitude like that.

You are hell bent on a character assassination' of a person proven to be a real, authentic communicator who has brought so much scientific knowledge into the homes of those that did not know such things existed. Most of what he writes are best sellers for a reason, and that reason is his obvious compassion in researching the lost history of civilization on this planet.

What have you done, that could possibly have had an effect on the world like Graham has had?

You refuse to acknowledge the attributes he has that have made him famous. Do you think all of his fans are wrong?
Name one journalist, researcher or scientist in this world that has been absolutely correct on the details of everything they delve into.

I call lack of respect, and I am sorry that you decided to become part of my thread, although you have the total right to do so.

It is distressing to witness an ATS member with so much time in here, having an attitude like that.

Ummm experience?

originally posted by: charlyv
a reply to: Harte

It is distressing to witness an ATS member with so much time in here, having an attitude like that.

You are hell bent on a character assassination' of a person proven to be a real, authentic communicator who has brought so much scientific knowledge into the homes of those that did not know such things existed. Most of what he writes are best sellers for a reason, and that reason is his obvious compassion in researching the lost history of civilization on this planet.

What have you done, that could possibly have had an effect on the world like Graham has had?

You refuse to acknowledge the attributes he has that have made him famous. Do you think all of his fans are wrong?
Name one journalist, researcher or scientist in this world that has been absolutely correct on the details of everything they delve into.

I call lack of respect, and I am sorry that you decided to become part of my thread, although you have the total right to do so.

Graham Hancock's character IS that of being a liar and a fraud.
That's not my doing, it's his.
Again, he is utterly wrong in his proposals for the ancient past, and he NEVER provides the evidence that his bogeyman ("mainstream science") bases their position on.
Decades of looking into THAT evidence confirmed to me that Hancock et al. were lying to his (their) audience in order to make money.
There is no other conclusion possible.

Harte

Graham Hancock's character IS that of being a liar and a fraud.

Opinion . And I know you’d never dare put that into print for your self published book , as those words would incur some serious legal troubles from someone with enough ‘F-you’ money to shut you up.
Ive got a working title for your self published book , Harte:
“ The Story of Harte and the Nasty Man - the life of a pseudo-academic”

Again, he is utterly wrong in his proposals for the ancient past,

Opinion . Provide evidence .

You mean he said that there must have been a precursor set of people who began stonework, study of the heavens, an organised society etc BEFORE the Sumerians and Egyptians? You are part of the group of people (you’re not an archaeologist , but a math teacher , remember) who decried this proposal from Hancock on this very site for many years .
Until Gobleki Tepe is uncovered @11,500 bp and the other Tas Tepeler sites that will take decades to uncover due to their vastness . There was the precursor groups Hancock (and others ) had surmised MUST have existed.
So shocking was this discovery from 11,500 bp , that the mainstream archaeologists (not you, as you aren’t one) had to literally change the definition of what “ hunter gatherers “ were, to fit this into a new definition.

These people at 11,500 plainly didn’t spend all their time hunting and gathering and simply surviving by the skin of their teeth as the mainstream had us believe - but they had time , tooling , artistic vision, etc etc etc to move multi tonne stones into these huge enclosures .
So who is wrong , a researcher whose work leads him to question a mainstream narrative about our ancestors , or the ‘mainstream’ archaeologists who had to literally change their wording overnight because of its discovery?

There is no other conclusion possible.

This is the kind of statement archaeologists used to make to Hancock , denying the existence of cohesive society, stonework , huge religious/social complexes during the time period GT was created. Then it was unearthed. Oh.

Nothing Harte likes better than rubbing his tiny little hands together when someone mentions Hancock , drawing his keyboard from its scabbard to do battle .

Stupid , sweeping statements from someone who wishes he had the credentials to back up his mouth.









a reply to: Harte

originally posted by: bluesfreak

Graham Hancock's character IS that of being a liar and a fraud.

Opinion . And I know you’d never dare put that into print for your self published book , as those words would incur some serious legal troubles from someone with enough ‘F-you’ money to shut you up.
Ive got a working title for your self published book , Harte:
“ The Story of Harte and the Nasty Man - the life of a pseudo-academic”

Again, he is utterly wrong in his proposals for the ancient past,

Opinion . Provide evidence .

You mean he said that there must have been a precursor set of people who began stonework, study of the heavens, an organised society etc BEFORE the Sumerians and Egyptians? You are part of the group of people (you’re not an archaeologist , but a math teacher , remember) who decried this proposal from Hancock on this very site for many years .
Until Gobleki Tepe is uncovered @11,500 bp and the other Tas Tepeler sites that will take decades to uncover due to their vastness . There was the precursor groups Hancock (and others ) had surmised MUST have existed.
So shocking was this discovery from 11,500 bp , that the mainstream archaeologists (not you, as you aren’t one) had to literally change the definition of what “ hunter gatherers “ were, to fit this into a new definition.

These people at 11,500 plainly didn’t spend all their time hunting and gathering and simply surviving by the skin of their teeth as the mainstream had us believe - but they had time , tooling , artistic vision, etc etc etc to move multi tonne stones into these huge enclosures .
So who is wrong , a researcher whose work leads him to question a mainstream narrative about our ancestors , or the ‘mainstream’ archaeologists who had to literally change their wording overnight because of its discovery?

There is no other conclusion possible.

This is the kind of statement archaeologists used to make to Hancock , denying the existence of cohesive society, stonework , huge religious/social complexes during the time period GT was created. Then it was unearthed. Oh.

Nothing Harte likes better than rubbing his tiny little hands together when someone mentions Hancock , drawing his keyboard from its scabbard to do battle .

Stupid , sweeping statements from someone who wishes he had the credentials to back up his mouth.

a reply to: Harte

You're defending a lying con man because it pains you too much to face the fact that you've been played for a fool.

Harte

originally posted by: bluesfreak

Graham Hancock's character IS that of being a liar and a fraud.

Opinion . And I know you’d never dare put that into print for your self published book , as those words would incur some serious legal troubles from someone with enough ‘F-you’ money to shut you up.
Ive got a working title for your self published book , Harte:
“ The Story of Harte and the Nasty Man - the life of a pseudo-academic”

Again, he is utterly wrong in his proposals for the ancient past,

Opinion . Provide evidence .

What kind of moron demands someone "prove" a negative?

originally posted by: bluesfreakYou mean he said that there must have been a precursor set of people who began stonework, study of the heavens, an organised society etc BEFORE the Sumerians and Egyptians?

THAT has ALWAYS been the position of mainstream Archaeology.

originally posted by: bluesfreakYou are part of the group of people (you’re not an archaeologist , but a math teacher , remember) who decried this proposal from Hancock on this very site for many years .

That is a lie. You are lying about me.
Not that this is surprising, coming from you.

originally posted by: bluesfreak
Until Gobleki Tepe is uncovered @11,500 bp and the other Tas Tepeler sites that will take decades to uncover due to their vastness . There was the precursor groups Hancock (and others ) had surmised MUST have existed.
So shocking was this discovery from 11,500 bp , that the mainstream archaeologists (not you, as you aren’t one) had to literally change the definition of what “ hunter gatherers “ were, to fit this into a new definition.

I don't know why you think that Archaeology maintained that stonework began with Sumer and Egypt.
Are you getting that tripe from Hancock? That's how he operates, after all, with straw man arguments.
There's a stone wall in Jericho that's 10,000 years old - found, dated and studied literally decades before Gobekli Tepe was even discovered.
Have you ever even heard of Catalhoyuk?
There are literally hundreds of known sites where stonework was done by earlier cultures - even ones that were pre-agricultural.
What is rattling around in your head that you would fall for such a ridiculous claim that the stonework at Gobekli Tepe was completely outside of the mainstream position, or that somehow the mainstream had claimed that hunter-gatherers were "simply surviving?" Sure, the age was surprising, but only by a couple thousand years. That was the only revision required, not some goofball claim of changing the definition of hunter-gatherers.
Gobekli Tepe was abandoned only 500 years before Catalhoyuk was built.

Harte

What kind of moron demands someone "prove" a negative

What kind of moron comes on here , as if he is Mr Big Balls (with no credentials in this field , not published, no peer reviews in the subject ) , and defames the personal character of someone he doesn’t even know?
You.
Have a spoon of your own medicine . Tasty?

THAT has ALWAYS been the position of mainstream Archaeology.

Nope. Now you’re the one pretending that archaeology knew this all along , which is not the case . GT shocked the archaeological community otherwise all the reports about it wouldn’t have been so full of quotes along the lines of “ this changes everything . “
And yes , the Tas Tepeler sites that have been uncovered , and still discovered WILL take decades to unearth due to their vastness .
The Tas Tepeler sites show a different SCALE of religious/social complexes than was ever believed to have existed before at that timeframe .
‘Archaeology’ admitted so.

Cataholyuk was 7000 bc at the earliest and could have been 6400 . Bit of a difference

That is a lie. You are lying about me. Not that this is surprising, coming from you.

Oh really ? Correct the lie then . I have read countless posts from you saying a) you teach math and regularly admonish any students of yours who bring up ancient mysteries , and b) also countless posts of you trying to shred Hancock . Correct the lie .
You can lie about Hancocks character here , and that’s all fine, eh?
Luckily you can defame him personally here without any ramifications, which is partly why you do it .

I don't know why you think that Archaeology maintained that stonework began with Sumer and Egypt.

Good try, but I didn’t actually say that .
The wonderful pre Egyptian stonework of Sumer still had to have evolved , over how long to get the level of total mastery over your materials?? ??
Probably thousands of years to get to the level seen in Sumer .
Gobekli Tepe is also surprising to actual Archaeologists as the carving is NOT simple carving , it is High Relief , requiring more skill than simply carving lines into rock , the rock is carved away AROUND the subject. This implies development of skill sets from the basic to the advanced , that means TIME.

There are literally hundreds of known sites where stonework was done by earlier cultures - even ones that were pre-agricultural.

Of course there were, yet none show the dating , the vastness of the projects , the obvious cohesiveness of the society and the implications of these huge Tas Tepeler sites. . And you know it .

What is rattling around in your head that you would fall for such a ridiculous claim that the stonework at Gobekli Tepe was completely outside of the mainstream position, or that somehow the mainstream had claimed that hunter-gatherers were "simply surviving?" Sure, the age was surprising, but only by a couple thousand years. That was the only revision required,

The mainstream position was that there were no large cohesive societies capable of these HUGE complexes .
Until they were found .
And yes. The mainstream thought people were having a much harder time surviving than GT proved.
GT shows they had time , tooling , time to get the resources , time for artistic vision, time for construction etc etc instead of using all their time surviving.
What bit of that are you not prepared to understand ?

Sure, the age was surprising, but only by a couple thousand years.

No, the age of its huge societal complexes blew their minds. It WAS surprising , why play down something that actual Archaeologists find mind blowing , just for the sake of your argument ? Lol .
“ a couple of thousand years” ?? 6400-7000 for Cataholyuk is not the same as 11,500 and possibly older Dating to come for other sites uncovered , is it .
“Couple of thousand “?? Again , you HALVE the actual amount of time between the two sites. Again just to suit your argument.

Also, let’s not forget to mention that Klaus Schmidt, the original lead archaeologist at Gobekli Tepe was very interested in Hancocks work, thought he was an ok guy , allowed him full access to the site.

Question: are you in favour of Hancock being physically banned from ancient sites, as we saw with Serpent Mound ?
Hawass hates him so much that he wangled it with the higher-ups that Hancock is banned from Egypt too.
.

ONE man, who says SOME THINGS that challenge or question a narrative, and is banned from these places.
Wow he must be dangerous . Did he threaten to blow them up with bombs ? Desecrate them? Take a leak on pillar 43?? Or just go there to see them? Ban him.
Do let us know your thoughts on that….




a reply to: Harte

I was always surprised that you gave so much time to someone you despise so vehemently whilst on here.
We’ve missed you over there , has it REALLY been 5 years since your last log-in to Grahams forum?
Wow, doesn’t time fly ???
Do you still get Grahams Newsletters direct to your inbox?


Hope to see you back there soon at some point, Harte, that ‘X’ shaped leather double- keyboard scabbard on your back, trolling away like only you can..
do come back …

More comedy gold…
a reply to: Harte

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.

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.



Pretty cool!

The Clovis people were wiped out by the YD impact and the ice bombardment from it.

www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...
www.youtube.com...

These secondary impacts of ice from the YD glacier ice would have been in the megaton range over every square mile east of the Rocky Mountains. This was about 8 megaton per square kilometer.
This would have killed just about every living person and large mammals in the secondary impact area.
This explains the loss of the mammoth and other large mammals in north America

I've put in (like I said) decades.
If anyone can spare a couple of hours, they can watch an episode by episode debunking of Hancock's Netflix crockumentary.
The guy makes it easy to skip to the episodes/topics you're interested in, if you can't spare the time to watch it all.
This is part 1, the first hour.


Harte

You’ve also put in decades not answering people’s direct questions on here I’ve seen your behaviour.
See mine above .
You just like to post and don’t actually truly get involved in the thread . Why bother ?
THAT I have seen repeatedly .
Aw, we have missed you on GH forum when did you last log in ?
a reply to: Harte

Harte