I’m with you. But I feel like he would have to believe there is a conspiracy of sorts? All his books and research is on there being a false narrative being laid out by a cabal of narcissistic scientists that won’t let new ideas emerge. He rants and raves about their being a ancient advanced civilizations that has been covered up. Sounds like a conspiracy to me lol.

Yeah true he’s all about climate changes causing a reset in civilization. Maybe he is a puppet leading people down a path similar enough but still off 🧐🤔

Ok, I'll bite, what kind of technological sophistication and what century(s) do you consider, "recent past?"

Thanks, I have never heard of those before.

I think this is semantics. Graham knows it's been covered up, but not every archaeologist is in on the conspiracy- he's absolutely right about that. They're working from the wrong model and are closed-minded because a lot of people (especially who don't smoke weed) are closed-minded. And I think Graham is a little unaware of the extent of the CIA/M16 reach in particular, but that doesn't make him a witting agent. No way.

Read his book "Supernatural." I really doubt anyone will come out of that book thinking he's working for the other side.

He seems to focus his views on the evidence he finds and bases his speculations about the past, and he willingly acknowledges they are his speculations, on his own standards which as often as he can he finds fact based support for.

For example, he consults with geologists, and other scientists and also has studied the til now versions of our past from the academic world.

Why do you think he is a gatekeeper?

I think he tries to stay within rationality. I don't find any fault with that.

Got anything I could check into on this front?

What does he ignore? Genuinely curious. I've read Hancock.

I agree, the purpose of his research is to stay grounded in science, in order to be unassailable (his own words).

Obviously he knows at least some about conspiracies (else wise he would not associate with some of the faces he does) - I just think he doesn't talk about it, to not give more ammunition to the other side.

Doesn't mean I trust the guy though.

Thanks for your thoughts, I love bumping into our real people users.

I find it amusing that many of the scientists working on the Younger-Dryas theory have symbolic names - Mr Firestone and his comet, Danny Hilman and his Pyramid under a hill... Hancock who "signs first"...

There is much to be gained from controlling the ancient civilization thesis - for example they wouldn't need bluebeam anymore - they could have (what I call) "green beam" - or "we wuz Atlanteans! Check out our Rh- blood and our bloodlines and our magic powers and texts! We are the Atlantean Lords of the Flame"

I too fell for it hook, line and sinker... but (and I can't quite remember why) - I was (already) concerned with Randall Carlson's masonic membership, Hancock's wife's name "Saantha Faya" (pronounced Fire) and Hancock just said something that worried me (I'm trying my hardest to recall but I just can't...).

In a synchronicity, I was about to email a radio host I (semi) trust ("D") and in the suggested list next to the Hancock video I was worried about - was a video of D's saying "If you need to ask me what I think of someone, that means you already have your suspicions, what do you need me for?". It was so surreal.

Like many others on the topic of alternative interpretations and speculation about an untold amount of unknown and unrecorded human history, Hancock peddles his own theory and presents the evidence he believes that supports it for a living and has managed to do reasonably well off of it for many years now.

Despite the nature of it or perhaps because of it he has also tried to project a high degree of respectability and common sense in promoting the plausibility of that theory.

A respectability that might get called into question if he gets too far afield or off that particular topic. He's never to my knowledge ever claimed that there's been a deliberate conspiracy to hide the possibility of more advanced civilizations prior to what we know so much as a stubborn attitude and a belief about a steady progression from the primitive to the present among scientists and archeologists with whatever came before having to be even more primitive.

For me, the mere fact that human beings just like ourselves have existed for at least 150,000 years and quite possibly even 250,000 or more leaves a lot of room for the rise and fall any number of highly advanced civilizations.

And of course, the very first rule of history as we ourselves are familiar with it, is that all civilizations ultimately fail and may be followed by other total failures before a new one with some staying power arises, peaks, stagnates and is eventually abandoned in favour of another one with hopefully better prospects. We are also in the same boat as any of them were when it comes to thinking that it can't possibly happen to our own even as we see the tell-tale signs of it starting to appear.

What's with the recent push to discredit people lately? First Leary, now Graham Hancock.

This post is the end of me even visiting this sub anymore. Hancock is just a curious researcher putting out possible alternative ideas... The next revision of this sub will be anyone who isn't a dem or a rep is controlled ops...

Graham Hancock is a lot of thing but not controlled opposition.

I believe he says he doesn't believe in an organized history conspiracy for two reasons:

1) Ancient history is built more on dogma than actual science and dogma is self-affirming.

2) Hancock needs historians to valid his research and the last person they are going to want to help is someone screaming about some vast historical conspiracy, so he is just being tactful.

Personnally, i believe the only conspiracies in history are any history that was contrived to support religion, history to support a sovereign state, and history that ignores the accomplishments of Black Africa.

I respectfully disagree, OP. I don't think you've listened to or read much Hancock; you should at least take the time to listen to some of his talks on Youtube. He comes off remarkably sincere. I'm not saying he's not flawed; I think he's a bit naive about politics and the extent of the reach of intelligence agencies, but that's not his research focus. Check out his work on psychedelic drugs playing a major role in human development. It's fantastic. His book on that subject was "Supernatural: Meetings With the Ancient Teachers of Mankind." Really worth reading. And the reality of ancient Egypt is extremely interesting and relevant and certainly not something that the powers that be want known.

It's not necessary to have a "controlled opposition" in fields of historical controversy. Academic consensus does the job automatically, and far better, with no supervision required.

In fact, given a choice between "controlled opposition" or "academic consensus", I'd choose to tackle a controlled opposition.

Academic consensus is far more insidious and suppressive, because in every instance it consists of intelligent, experienced, and highly-qualified people whose livelihoods and reputations depend upon maintaining the status quo. And their belief in their own superiority is mutually-reinforcing. They have no concept of being wrong.

Who was it (probably Einstein) who said that scientific revolutions occur not due to breakthrough ideas by geniuses, but due to the gradual deaths of all the old scientists who insisted the "old way" was the only way and everything else was nonsense?

That's a depressingly insightful observation.

Truth ain't for sale at Barnes & Noble