Gladius Hispaniensis Posted December 22, 2007 Report Share Posted December 22, 2007 Ave I'm not a person easily given to wild conspiracy theories and New Age nonsense but here is a programme that does pose some challenging questions: This is a five part series hosted by the Discovery Channel featuring, among others, Graham Hancock (yes, THE Graham Hancock) that challenge some of our most fundamental beliefs regarding the origins of ancient civilization as we know it. I would like fellow forum members to open-mindedly view the documentary and share any thoughts they have. If there are any Egyptologists here I would especially like to hear from them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faustus Posted December 23, 2007 Report Share Posted December 23, 2007 (edited) Salve G.H. For a possible explanation on how the vases might have been "hollowed" out go HERE part of which I've quoted as follows: "At the same time as the pyramids were being constructed, another intriguing development occurred. Fine alabaster vases with delicate, narrow throats and other artifacts were created in the same meticulous precision as the casing stones. How could the Egyptians hollow out the bottom of the vases through the narrow throat without a highly advanced technology, which has disappeared in the mist of time? Little if any indication of their manufacture remains." Edited December 23, 2007 by Faustus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
virg Posted December 23, 2007 Report Share Posted December 23, 2007 Aggravating waste of time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladius Hispaniensis Posted December 23, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2007 Aggravating waste of time. Does that mean that you think the premise of the documentary is self-evident or that you disagree with what the experts in the documentary are saying? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melvadius Posted December 23, 2007 Report Share Posted December 23, 2007 (edited) Aggravating waste of time. Does that mean that you think the premise of the documentary is self-evident or that you disagree with what the experts in the documentary are saying? I must admit my first reaction on reading the original posting was "who is Graham Hancock?" Then I started to watch the video and it alll came flooding back --- just another of the effectivley limitless number of conspiracy theorists who trot out a succession of "experts" and wild theories based on the flimsiest of evidence, while totally ignoring well known and equally well founded archaeological and scientific evidence. Who can foget that fabulous BBC investigation back in 1999? Using his own methods it found more correlation between the location of a random selection of New York buildings and the stars above them than the Cambodian Temple complex Hancock claimed had been built influenced by the position of the same constellations. Incidently Hancock had totally ignored the sequence of construction, dedication inscriptions and another 20 or 30 temples that didn't fit his theory. He and his partner in the programme filed 10 complaints between them to the Broadcasting Standards Commission but only one very minor complaint was partially upheld about one of his 'experts' comments not being fully included in the programme. The BBC then included it in a very slightly remade programme and if anything the "expert" made Hancock look even more of a charlatan or (should I say?) a somewhat misguided person. On the basis of past experience I think I will continue to pass on watching or indeed speculating at any depth if there is even a grain of possibility in any more of his theorems (AKA as usually drivel) if I can possibly avoid them. Edited December 23, 2007 by Melvadius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladius Hispaniensis Posted December 23, 2007 Author Report Share Posted December 23, 2007 Who can foget that fabulous BBC investigation back in 1999? Using his own methods it found more correlation between the location of a random selection of New York buildings and the stars above them than the Cambodian Temple complex Hancock claimed had been built influenced by the position of the same constellations. Incidently Hancock had totally ignored the sequence of construction, dedication inscriptions and another 20 or 30 temples that didn't fit his theory. laugh.gif Melvadius, can you give me a link for that programme? To be honest with you this kind of stuff is not really my line of study - I am used to reading much more sober stuff - but I do need some material with which to debate all those bizarros and whackos out there that would swallow any codswallop that comes their way and expect others to do the same. I must admit Hancock is new to me, but back in my adolescence I was familiar with other kooks like Berlitz and von Daniken that held so many people in their thrall a few decades ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melvadius Posted December 23, 2007 Report Share Posted December 23, 2007 Who can foget that fabulous BBC investigation back in 1999? Using his own methods it found more correlation between the location of a random selection of New York buildings and the stars above them than the Cambodian Temple complex Hancock claimed had been built influenced by the position of the same constellations. Incidently Hancock had totally ignored the sequence of construction, dedication inscriptions and another 20 or 30 temples that didn't fit his theory. laugh.gif Melvadius, can you give me a link for that programme? To be honest with you this kind of stuff is not really my line of study - I am used to reading much more sober stuff - but I do need some material with which to debate all those bizarros and whackos out there that would swallow any codswallop that comes their way and expect others to do the same. I must admit Hancock is new to me, but back in my adolescence I was familiar with other kooks like Berlitz and von Daniken that held so many people in their thrall a few decades ago. A discussion of the 2000 'recut' programme along with transcripts of both the BSC ruling and the Horizon programme itself 'Atlantis Reborn Again' can be found at this link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/...bornagain.shtml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caldrail Posted February 4, 2008 Report Share Posted February 4, 2008 trouble is, there are people who like to make money out of outlandish theories about ancient science. We know the egyptians at some point invented a primitive battery, which they used for simple things like plating ornaments, but that - whilst astonishing enough - is not proof they flew gliders, generated strange energy fields, built huge monuments with anti-gravity, colonised the world, and invited space aliens to tea. Its all about marketing ignorance. In fact, the people who do well out of this genre use the same techniques as religious preachers, by asking questions in such a way as to provoke 'revelations' in the mind of the reader. For instance.... A stone has been uncovered in the egyptian desert, dated to around 3500BC, which has an external groove carved into it. This groove could not have been cut by the human technology of the day. Could it be possible, therefore, that the egyptians had access to superior stone cutting technology? How could these simple peoples achieve these technologies without assistance from alien visitors? See what I mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Neil Posted February 4, 2008 Report Share Posted February 4, 2008 The problem I find with a lot of this speculative and sensational literature is that it makes even genuine study into such areas off - limits. For example, there is a case for looking closer at the date of the sphinx and questioning who may have built it. Unfortunately Hancock's grandiose theories have put such legitimate research on the backburner. The same with Atlantis. Thanks to a plethora of fanciful books speculating on a glittering civilisation in the midst of the palaeolithic world, indications from geologists that the Central Atlantic Ridge in the Azores region may have been above water in the ice age are largely ignored. It is a shame that an area of study itself should become unrespectable because of these charlatans. But, it is also a shame that proper academics should avoid an area of interest because of this. They should be impartial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gladius Hispaniensis Posted February 5, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 I agree with Northern Neill and Caldrail. I don't think there is anything wrong with authors making money selling their ideas if they sincerely believe in them but making a buck by means of intellectual dishonesty is another ball game altogether. Another person of the same ilk as Hancock is Jim Marrs, who is a firm believer in alien colonisation of earth by inhabitants from Mars. What amazes me is that people like Hancock, Berlitz, von Daniken etc don't exactly strike me as men with a low IQ. I sometimes wonder if these fellows actually believe half the things they themselves say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melvadius Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 I could be generous and say that they may have come up with a theory and sold a book deal on the basis of it only to find when they actually did any real research that their theory didn't hold up much in the way of water (I had to get Atlantis in somehow) so they had to make things up as they went along to fill their deadline. On the other hand I think most of them just found a way to make easy money as their conspiracy type theories generally fly off the shelves, whereas any properly researched book will tend to only sell in small specialist markets or at in least limited numbers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DecimusCaesar Posted February 13, 2008 Report Share Posted February 13, 2008 I was given a book on this subject a few years back. I didn't find the evidence that convincing. We might not have a 100% understanding of how the Pyramids were built, but I don't think we can bring supermen from Atlantis into the equation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochus III Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 I definitely think there is a question that needs to be asked here: What about those olmec statues that have an African facial structure? If anyone can answer that one with evidence to back themselves up, they should write a book. On the topic of the sphinx and the pyramids, I think that some random tribe made the sphinx, and the egyptians made the pyramids. Its clearly not a case of "advanced civilization" moving in and then suddenly disappearing. ATG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Northern Neil Posted November 12, 2008 Report Share Posted November 12, 2008 The "negroid" features of the wonderful Olmec heads (flat wide noses and thick fleshy lips) are not uncommon among many Native american groups, which as any other human ethnic group are hardly uniform. Indeed - in fact they have never struck me as even looking particularly negroid. It could be said, on exactly the same evidence, that these statues represent morbidly obese people. To me the faces are Native American morphologically, the heavy chunky style being an artistic affectation rather than a realistic representation of a face. I agree with Antiochus though that many anomalies brought to our attention by the likes of Hancock etc deserve closer scrutiny, and it is a shame that the flambuoyant style, sensationalism and poor research of such people renders legitimate studies into these areas off - limits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antiochus III Posted November 19, 2008 Report Share Posted November 19, 2008 I definitely think there is a question that needs to be asked here: What about those olmec statues that have an African facial structure? If anyone can answer that one with evidence to back themselves up, they should write a book. On the topic of the sphinx and the pyramids, I think that some random tribe made the sphinx, and the egyptians made the pyramids. Its clearly not a case of "advanced civilization" moving in and then suddenly disappearing. ATG Actually many books have been written on this issue; no big deal. The "negroid" features of the wonderful Olmec heads (flat wide noses and thick fleshy lips) are not uncommon among many Native american groups, which as any other human ethnic group are hardly uniform. There has never been found any hard evidence of any kind supporting ethnic negroid presence before Columbus, and it's quite unlikely that it may happen in the future. In fact, such evidence would pose more questions and create more more problems that it would solve, specially of the "why didn't" kind; eg, "why didn't the Africans brought their cattle and the wheel to America with them"? The pseudocientific theories that have been proposing the African origin of the Olmecs since the 1970s are a good example of the dangers of mixing ideology with research; being the Olmecs presented as evidence of some purported ancient deeds from a currently discriminated ethnic group (like the "black Cleopatra" theory), denying such "theories" can be explained just by inherent racism. Very interesting. I have really only scratched the surface on this one--I would like to which Native american groups have the negroid (which, by the way apparently is an offensive word) features you mentioned, and of course where you found that. I can think that there have been african chips that reached south america-and other places. Which brings up another question--where did teh aboriginees come from, and how the heck did they get to australia? Same goes for the polynesians/pacific islander groups. I find the answers behind the questions of human origin and migration fascinating, so if we have an expert who has been hiding out there, come and show off!! ATG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.