Graham Hancock....kook?

Cafe Society
1

A while back I read Fingerprints of the Gods. I enjoyed the book immensely, and he raised some convincing evidence about the age of the Pyramids and the Sphinx. I just started to read Underworld and I am almost convinced the man is a lunatic. The book is complete tripe; it lacks the punch of Fingerprints. Obviously he is more interested in telling us about scuba diving off Bombay and his beautiful wife than anything substantive.

Because of my horrible experience with Underworld, I am beginning to be convinced that Fingerprints was the work of the same quack, which leads me to doubt anything inside. I would read Fingerprints again, but I lent it to my ex-g/f, and I don’t think it’s coming back anytime soon.

So is Graham Hancock a kook?

I refer you to his Website in case you have no idea what I am talking about.

2

I think kook may be a little harsh.

Be that as it may, he tends to ignore facts when they don’t suit his theories and stretch others when they do. Not that any other author does any different, but he tends to take it to new levels. I read and enjoyed “The Sign and the Seal” for no reason other than I was staggered at the amount of apparently disparate threads of ‘evidence’ that he was able to weave into one theory! Quite amazing.

If you are looking for something outside orthodox interperatations of pyramids etc - go for it.

He actually cites Indiana Jones as an inspiration, and that can only be a good thing. :slight_smile:

3

He’s a kook. Globe-girdling civilizations tens of thousands of years old? A hidden ark that has an unbroken history of several thousand years, but you have to take his word for it? How can you take this guy seriously?

I thought that Robert Bauval had a couple of interesting ideas at first (his pyraminds of Giza as Orion’s belt theory, and a couple of others), but since he took up with Hancock and started co-authoring books with him, his credibility has gone down the tubes, too.

4

Here’s the transcript of a BBC programme called Horizon which holds Hancock’s theories up to the light.

He’s a kook.

5

Not even Hancock is now convinced by his ‘evidence’ for the age of the Pyramids as set out in Fingerprints of the Gods. He has since accepted that the conventional dating was roughly correct after all.

Having looked at Hancock’s website, check out the Hall of Ma’at.

And, yes, ‘kook’ is the word I would use.

6

I don’t know that he’s a kook…I just know he’s wrong about most of what he believes wrt archaeology and geology.

7

He’s a kook, but he’s not as bad as von Daaniken, who got so whacko that he later had to retract one of his books, or Alan Alford who tries to carbon date rocks.

But the fact that he clings to his theories when they have no evidence makes him pretty kooky.