Graham Hancock

[Laura]

Well, the problem with Hancock's surface skimming and assumptions is that once they have definite proof that any of his statements are patently wrong, then they will dismiss the whole thing for everyone. And many will be turned off by that sort of carelessness.

I'd like to see something like this done with a good buffer of caution. Lord knows, there is enough to raise a million questions without jumping to the end and declaring a "one size fits all" solution. As we all know here, sometimes things just are not as they appear to be exactly and the Devil is in the details.

 

[Alejo]

The existence of an advanced civilization in the past would be a hard blow to the idea of gradual evolution, and possibly also to the pride in the uniqueness of the current human civilization and its achievements conveyed in most schools.

True, and also, which is why I liked his documentary so much, the idea that it's a cyclical catastrophe that brought it to an end.. and it's going to happen again and.. there's nothing our leaders can do about it. That's why it's dangerous, it makes everything else completely moot.

I recently got his fingerprints of the gods, and I will be giving it a read and make my mind up about it. I liked his America Before, so I daresay this one will be at least entertaining and peaking in curiosity.

 

[thorbiorn]

Well, the problem with Hancock's surface skimming and assumptions is that once they have definite proof that any of his statements are patently wrong, then they will dismiss the whole thing for everyone. And many will be turned off by that sort of carelessness.

In this case, it is very much up to the viewer to penetrate the veil, ask more questions and connect the dots. Being put off by the negative press is part of a test, so is believing the whole log, then finding out some is false and end up flushing out the baby with the bath water.

There are examples from other fields, as when there is an article even in a main stream paper, say about 9/11, or COVID, the war in Ukraine, UFO's or religion that goes in the right direction. While many people will not pick it up, because they will decide based on what is presented the most, which will be something more false, a few may get triggered, begin to read, recall earlier articles they have read or movies, documentaries and shows they have seen, talk with others and change their perspective gradually.

 

[thorbiorn]

Now what to make of this:

Graham Hancock is RIGHT! An Archaeologist Responds to Netflix's Ancient Apocalypse
1.612 visninger 26. nov. 2022
This was so hard to do, but I feel so much better having done it.

Dr. Andrew Kinkella is here to teach archaeology to everyone! My channel includes a series of videos that give you the building blocks of archaeology in a style that is brief, relaxed, and funny. It is also an honest and personal record of what it's like to be an archaeologist, from swashbuckling in the Maya jungle to paying for grad school. Welcome to the show!

When Kinkella says Graham Hancock is right, he refers to his general criticism of archaeologists, as being self-centred, narrow-minded, and that they hide things from the public. He does not address specific claims Hancock makes.

He claims he and his students found a skull and another part in a 13,000-year layer, apparently in California, just the day before the recording.




One wonders if more artefacts will surface from other sources that feel the courage to share.

 

[Zzartemis]

 

[Cosmos]

Now what to make of this:


When Kinkella says Graham Hancock is right, he refers to his general criticism of archaeologists, as being self-centred, narrow-minded, and that they hide things from the public. He does not address specific claims Hancock makes.

He claims he and his students found a skull and another part in a 13,000-year layer, apparently in California, just the day before the recording.

View attachment 67464

View attachment 67466
One wonders if more artefacts will surface from other sources that feel the courage to share.

He is joking and making fun of Hancocks assertions.

 

[thorbiorn]

He is joking and making fun of Hancocks assertions.

Thank you, and it dawns on me only after more than an hour of reflection.

 

[Yupo]

View attachment 67485

Oh, now this is the Guardian I'm used to reading! This may require a walk back at some point, just like their covid-related coverage.

 

[mkrnhr]

I wonder if featuring this doc with all its flaws isn't a decision somewhere to discredit the whole issue, within a larger agenda related to "misinformation and conspiracy theories". After all, of all the documents about the covid lunacy and covid injections, the one that's made viral is "died suddenly". Instead of burying true information, it's easier to mix it with some easily debunkable nonsense, and finally paint the whole thing, including the true bits as laughable nonsense. It's an old trick that works every time.

 

[Alejo]

I wonder if featuring this doc with all its flaws isn't a decision somewhere to discredit the whole issue, within a larger agenda related to "misinformation and conspiracy theories". After all, of all the documents about the covid lunacy and covid injections, the one that's made viral is "died suddenly". Instead of burying true information, it's easier to mix it with some easily debunkable nonsense, and finally paint the whole thing, including the true bits as laughable nonsense. It's an old trick that works every time.

And make people afraid of discussing it, that's a very good point. It's exactly what happened with Alex Jones, gave large credibility and audience to someone unstable.. let him spout some nonsense along with some interesting ideas and then bam! problem solved.

I hadn't considered that angle, but it is interesting to say the least.

 

[Alejo]

And make people afraid of discussing it, that's a very good point. It's exactly what happened with Alex Jones, gave large credibility and audience to someone unstable.. let him spout some nonsense along with some interesting ideas and then bam! problem solved.

I hadn't considered that angle, but it is interesting to say the least.

And I just thought of something else, which was the inclusion of Joe Rogan even in the promotional material, they have not been able to get rid of Rogan, but if they can associate him with all this "quackery" then it's yet another step in curtailing his influence on people.

 

[Yupo]

Joe Rogan has an enormous following. I'm willing to bet that more listeners trust his content than trust MSM content. And when the Guardian and Kinkella go after Hancock like this, it just proves his point that there might be subjects that the PTB do not want us looking into very deeply. He must have touched a nerve.

 

[Alejo]

Joe Rogan has an enormous following. I'm willing to bet that more listeners trust his content than trust MSM content. And when the Guardian and Kinkella go after Hancock like this, it just proves his point that there might be subjects that the PTB do not want us looking into very deeply. He must have touched a nerve.

That's true, and the thing with Rogan, is that he built his reputation on this very long conversation that isn't pretentious, it makes it easier to relate to him as a human being, Rogan always comes across to me as curious, that's it, and everyone can relate to not knowing something.

Most of the attacks on Rogan on the MSM are made up of "People should not trust him because he's crazy" that's it, it's almost a commandment, and that will work with authoritarians... but most everyone else, I think, will simply grow curious about him and make him even more popular.

 

[Yupo]

That's true, and the thing with Rogan, is that he built his reputation on this very long conversation that isn't pretentious, it makes it easier to relate to him as a human being, Rogan always comes across to me as curious, that's it, and everyone can relate to not knowing something.

Most of the attacks on Rogan on the MSM are made up of "People should not trust him because he's crazy" that's it, it's almost a commandment, and that will work with authoritarians... but most everyone else, I think, will simply grow curious about him and make him even more popular.

Rogan can come across as a bit nutty, but it doesn't matter because the show is never about him. The show is about what his guests have to say. And the guests are always interesting.

 

[Voyageur]

I wonder if featuring this doc with all its flaws isn't a decision somewhere to discredit the whole issue, within a larger agenda related to "misinformation and conspiracy theories". After all, of all the documents about the covid lunacy and covid injections, the one that's made viral is "died suddenly". Instead of burying true information, it's easier to mix it with some easily debunkable nonsense, and finally paint the whole thing, including the true bits as laughable nonsense. It's an old trick that works every time.

Yes, possibly so and indeed an old trick.

Was also pondering the attacks as being part of the subtle and not so subtle overall fear of plebeians prying into hollowed academic ground. If one for a second removes Hancock, wherein he has always stated he is just a journalist, there were others presenting data, limited at that. Thus, the sacred cows can't have people looking at Carlson or some of the others as that may then lead them to all kinds of theories of geology, glaciology and much else, all coming back to archology. Heaven forbid people mess with comets and the Younger Dryas with an eye to Göbekli Tepe, no, that is not officially blessed.

This has been going on for a long time, has it not? Think Velikovsky and how he rattled the establishment - sure he was wrong about things and not all things, but the discussion was not allowed.

Was reminded of Rogan's #961 near 6-years ago, the session with Hancock, Carlson with Michael Shermer and the geologist Marc Defant. It was pretty lively, with some reconsiderations of the data that came out a little later.

If interest to spend 3 hours, here it is: