Graham Hancock has raised many issues ignored by conventional scientists. He has done a good job of challenging the commonly held beliefs, and has withstood and answered scrutiny. His work is definitley based in reality and facts. It shows there are lost civilizations far back in history long before how far the current understanding goes.
I remember a show where he showed that the bimini road blocks, are all raised above the sea floor about 6 inches, by almost cone shaped( but stable, not pointed on the end) pillars at each corner. That doesn’t look natural. He pointed out that the geologists who claimed it was natural did not even probably look underneath the blocks, or completely ignored that part.
The Underworld show showed, that at least some of them, are still propped above the ground by stones at the corners. WHy? Well, it would be a mystery then, like stonehenge
And even though this article claims there are no blocks placed on top of each other at bimini, I saw on the Underworld show that there are smaller pillar blocks placed underneath at the corners, almost holding the main blocks off the ground by several inches. There’ also the fact that geologists themselves can’t even agree on the age. http://www.intersurf.com/~chalcedony/Bimini1.html
in like 10,000 years a lot of things are going to just simply disappear, or perhaps be only known in a few small traditions.
There are also some interesting above water sites around the bimini area. Ones that were not first discovered by archaeologists, but by the ARE( association of research and enlightenment) organization. http://edgarcayce.org/am/biminiexpedition.html
He also showed there are clear cut man made archways, with astrological alignments underwater near Malta. The art around Malta is very similar to stone age, spiral-like art. There were teeth found near malta in a cave layer only possible at 12,000 years ago. Many skulls or skeletons from that cave mysteriously dissapeared and have never been dated. And then he found underwater clear cut archways and temples at Malta.
We know ancient cultures were very concerned with Feng Shui and astronomy, Grahan Hancock I’m sure is correct in his theories, as they are quite detailed and clearly documented with evidence, and the fact I just said, Feng Shui is a big part of ancient knowledge in many cultures.
Another thing that shows his knowledge, the Yonaguni megalith. 10 years ago several scientist who examined it thought it was natural, or maybe only altered by humans. Dr. Robert Schoch and John Anthony West thought it was natural upon first examination. However, even higher level scientists like Dr. Kimura stated, and risked their reputatiopn in stating it was man-made. Graham Hanock also thought it was man made, I believe. Now, with the newer discoveries of the giant statue and standium in another area nearby, I don’t think many people think it’s natural anymore
If you’re really serious – and it looks as if you are – you really do need to broaden your reading. There’s plenty of criticism of Hancock and his theories (and of Bauval, too). There’s a great deal more than the few points Hancock highlighted in his communications with the BBC. I think that if you tried to get the vast majority of archaeologists, historians, astronomers, and others to buy inmto his theory of world-girdling monument-building civilizations many thousands of years before the recognized rise of Egypt, Sumeria, or India, I think you’d meet quite a lot of resistance – and not because Hancock isn’t a member of any “club”.
The reason is he has very strong evidence to show the whole conventional viewpoint is seriously flawed. He also shows the proof up front in an understandable way, and can answer the baseless criticisms. I also can post more about this and prove many things about Mr. Hancock’s findings and investigations.
I mean, the modern Science itself is always wrong, and always changing it’s mind. Evolution, Big Bang, these are all made up, will be changed eventually, and even then, what they are replaced with won’t be true either.
Now, obviously most scientists don’t want to admit they spent 20 years studying wrong ideas, which they did. They don’t want the next generation taking over and the older scientists be left in the dust. So they deny obvious facts, bury their heads in the sand, and won’t accept everything they think had been proven wrong
But anyways, I’m going off topic a bit, maybe I can discuss these things more specifically in future threads if I’m around in the future
I believe that similarities in mythologies from across the globe may be due to some common proto-mythology that they all diverged from, but that doesn’t require some world-spanning civilization. In prehistoric times, change was a lot slower. A myth passed down orally might remain virtually unchanged for thousands of years, and hunter-gatherer people can be very mobile - in many areas, they have to be because a tribe couldn’t stay in one area for long without depleting the local ecosystem of easy to hunt/gather food. If a person was likely to have travelled only 50 miles during the course of their lifetime in these migrations, it would only take a couple of hundred generations for your ancestors to be born on the other side of the Eurasian continent from where you were born, and they might be telling the same story about how your uncle Noagh survived a big flood by hanging on to a piece of driftwood, though there would probably be some additions to the story by then.
Add to this that similarities in myths would strengthen them - if the nomads you meet in your travels also heard the story of Noagh (though they called him something different), that story would gain a lot of significance, and maybe people would use the common myth as a way to create a tie between tribes - “Your people and my people both believe in the Great Flood and the God-Sent Dead Tree, we must have common ancestors and be one people! Let’s go kill those other folks who’ve never heard of Noagh!”. I can see how a lot of details could pass all the way from Mesopotamia to Central America.
ChainGangis2Sweet, you have now laid out your admiration for Mr. Hancock. Is there a point you wish to debate?
Hancock’s lack of acceptance by the archaeological and paleontological communities?
If you are going to engage in a discussion or debate, you will be better served by laying out an actual point of view in your own words. Citations are valuable to ascertain that you are not inventing “facts,” but they are not a substitute for actual ideas posted in your own words.
One thing I would point out, is that what the broadcasting standards commision found to be unfair against Mr. Hancock and Mr. Buvau was the main core criticism of their central theory by skeptics. The main criticism that the pyramids are upside down in Mr Buvauls’ main Orion Correlation theory has been shown to be baseless
The main point of this thread is the general origins of what we call civlization, and things copncerning that. All understandings can be posted
Oddly enough, I agree with you, if I understand you properly about the criticism being with whether or not the orientation of the pyramids being “upside down” with respect to Orion’s belt is important. I believe that there’s some validity to the arrangement. I’ve even corresponded briefly with Mr. Bauval about it.
But that’s Bauval’s theory, not Graham Hancock’s (although he agrees with it), and I don’t agree with all of Bauval’s other statemernts regarding it, or with Hancock’s. It’s certainly not central to Hancock’s beliefs or theories. And it’s not at all central to criticisms of Mr. Hancock’s work.