Graham Hancock 12 part interview

I was listening to a interview with Graham Hancock that was uploaded to Youtube about a day ago, and think its pretty good. You can listen to it while you browse this forum or do other things. Anyway, the theory is that there was a large asteroid hitting earth 12900 years ago, wiping out all life in a enormous global firestorm and melting the ice at the poles.

12900 years ago was the end of the last ice age. This comet caused the ice sheets to melt and raising sea levels by more than 400 feet. Hancock speaks of large stone monuments that proves it, some as big as the Stone Henge. These can be found 120 feet below the surface of the ocean off the coast of Japan and is, according to him, man made.

He believes the Maya knew that this would happen, and that earlier civilizations got wiped off the planet because of their negative behavior, much like current humans. He also believes we have a chance to change this happening again by transformation of our consciousness.

I just found it interesting. I noticed there was a few threads about Graham earlier here on ATS, but this thread has links to the recently uploaded interview with him. Check it out if you are interested.

Some links to possible meteor hitting Earth 12900 years ago:

Did A Comet Hit Great Lakes Region, Fragment Human Populations, 12,900 Years Ago?
Further Evidence of an American Armageddon 12,900 Years Ago. When's the Next?
Comet may have doomed prehistoric Clovis 12,900 years ago
Did A Comet Hit Great Lakes Region 12,900 Years Ago?
Comet May Have Exploded Over North America 13,000 Years Ago
Did a comet wipe out prehistoric Americans?
Extra-terrestrial impact did in mammoths: scientists
Mammoth Collision: Did asteriod kill ice age mammals?
Comet Cools Clovis

Here are the youtube episodes with the Graham Hancock interview.

Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Part 10
Part 11
Part 12

Enjoy.

So, did anyone listen to this and have a opinion? Human kind being 12900 years old, that surely contradicts the science and the religions. Yet there seems to be evidence of this event happening.

So what gives... the comet hit us, but human kind did not die completely?


[edit on 3-10-2007 by Copernicus]

Originally posted by Copernicus

I was listening to a interview with Graham Hancock ...
Anyway, the theory is that there was a large asteroid hitting earth 12900 years ago, wiping out all life in a enormous global firestorm and melting the ice at the poles.


He believes the Maya knew that this would happen,
and that earlier civilizations got wiped off the planet because of their negative behavior, much like current humans.

the man says in one paragraph that natural cosmic events changed the world/


in the next breath he says things occur because of negative behavior


wonder which he really means ????

[edit on 3-10-2007 by St Udio]

reply to post by St Udio


You have to listen to what he says to understand it. He believes our collective consciousness affects what happens in the real world. I know it sounds "out there", but then again, personally Im convinced there is much more to the world than the physical plane.

Originally posted by Copernicus
So, did anyone listen to this and have a opinion? Human kind being 12900 years old, that surely contradicts the science and the religions. Yet there seems to be evidence of this event happening.

So what gives... the comet hit us, but human kind did not die completely?
[edit on 3-10-2007 by Copernicus]

Copernicus, maybe it was a typo on your part, but...science believes humankind is at least 200,000 years old - science has never said humankind is less than 12,900 years old. Just a picky point.

Graham Hancock has alot of things to say and can back it up with alot of facts. His research is extremely detailed and extensive.
Thanks for posting the links to the thread, Copernicus. I will surely listen to this one.

[edit on 3/10/07 by forestlady]

reply to post by forestlady


Yes, what Graham says contradicts science, thats what I meant. So if a comet hit earth 12900 years ago and wiped out the entire mankind like he says, the theory of evolution and all that stuff goes out the window.

And its fascinating with the stone structures on the bottom of the sea that are not made by nature.

So its interesting.


[edit on 3-10-2007 by Copernicus]

reply to post by Copernicus


Yes, what Hancock says definitely contradicts mainstream science. But I sure can't fault his research, as it's some of the most thorough I've ever seen. He doesn't make things up, he bases his theories on genuine evidence and seems to know alot about lost archaeology. I think he may well be on the right track and for all we know, human civilizations have been built and destroyed many times over. I love his outside-the-box thinking.

One of the most interesting is his mention of the Peri Riese (sp?) map, which gives an absolutely correct outline of either the Arctic or Antarctic coastline - a map which was apparently discovered before Columbus came to America, IIRC, but is much older. How does anyone explain that except for concluding that there were much older civilizations who explored the seas, way before we think they did.

reply to post by forestlady


Im a large fan of original thinking as well, and I believe that all significant progress comes from people who are able to do exactly that. So I think its very interesting.

If this is true, it basically affects everything doesnt it? What if scientists methods for determining age are completely wrong. It turns everything on its head. Also very interesting.

Or it could be that several mankinds have lived before us, and the artifacts found are actually as old as they seem, but are from different humans.

I will have to get his book me thinks.


[edit on 3-10-2007 by Copernicus]

Hancock has significantly changed his views since the publication of Underword then. In that book he seems to be saying that the rise in sea levels was a result of natural global warming which broke an ice dam holding back the now unfrozen water in what is now Hudsons Bay. Once the dam broke the water was released and raised the level of the oceans enough to innundate the coastal-based civilizations, hence the flood stories. This had nothing to do with a comet; it was simply the result of coming out of an Ice Age, which we are still doing, meaning Global warming may be much more a result of the natural processes than anything to do with humanity, though 'we' may be accellerating the process.

In Underworld Hancock goes into great detail about the rise of the sea levels over that time over 12,000 years ago. It did not 'wipe out humanity' at all, but did flood the sea coast cities rather suddenly. This, of course, caused a setback to civilization, but not humanity per se.

Now, the fact that there was a flood 12,900 years ago (whether or not it was caused by a comet) does not for a second undermine evolution or any of the paleontological theories about mankind's spread and progress. Evolution doesn't 'go out the window' at all because evolution is talking about far broader time scales than a few thousand years. There is ample time within current evolutionary theory for mankind to have been around in significant numbers 12,900 years ago. In fact, what we know about the 'spread of humanity,' particularly into Europe, can be well accommodated within this flood theory.

Further, Indian religion seems to confirm this as it suggests that mankind has been around for a long while. There is some detail on this in Forbidden Archaeology by Michael Cremo, if you're interested. OF COURSE it contradicts fundamentalist Christian religion, which often claims the world was made in 4004 BC on October 23rd at 9:00 a.m. I would hardly call that a criticism. However, many religions, including the large majority of Christians, can accommodate a longer time period for the age of the earth.

So bottom line is that the 12,900 BC flood theory itself does not contradict science, not does it contradict all religions.

reply to post by schuyler


Well, I think he claims that all mankind died when the comet hit, creating firestorms all over the planet and melting all the ice. If they all died, we would have to start over as bacteria... and evolve to what we have now in 12900 years. That contradicts science, doesnt it?

I may have to listen to it again to see if I possibly misunderstood that all humans died.


[edit on 3-10-2007 by Copernicus]

reply to post by Copernicus

That puzzles me a bit in view of what he wrote in "Underworld." I'm not saying he's NOT changed his mind (haven't watched the vid) but Wow! That's quite a change in his point of view. I thought 'Underworld' was a pretty good read by itself--highly recommended. It was published in 2003, so not really that old. Be interesting to clarify this...