3 ms·

A cataclysmic event around 11,600-12,800 years ago is absolutely what the evidence suggests and nobody covers the topic better than Graham Hancock. Though he se

A cataclysmic event around 11,600-12,800 years ago is absolutely what the evidence suggests and nobody covers the topic better than Graham Hancock. Though he seems to think there were both hunter and gatherers and an advanced civilization based on the discovery of Gobekli Tepe and other megalithic architecture located in Peru, Easter Island, Bolivia, China, Egypt, Mexico, & Japan. Hancock gave an unbelievable presentation on the topic last week. This is well worth viewing. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZhSun9_SYs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZhSun9_SYs edit: Down voters should leave a comment. I'm curious what you have to say as I've spent a lot of time researching this topic.

fractallyte 9y ago
I didn't downvote you, but it's most likely because Hancock's ideas are considered pseudoscientific. He has no academic credentials: has not subjected his ideas to peer review, or published in any recognized journals. Plus, you basically said it yourself: "Hancock gave an unbelievable presentation on the topic..." (That said, these lazy 'drive-by downvoters' are extremely annoying. If any of them are reading this, shame on you.)
- sintaxi 9y ago
  You are likely right. I don't refute that those accusations exist. Hancock is a curious writer who bases his theories on the discoveries of all disciplines such as geology, physics, engineering, & oral history, from both the academic and non-academic alike which a small handful of very powerful archeologists seem to have a large issue with. In particular Hancock refused to dismiss and instead validated Robert Schoch's Sphinx water erosion timeline and Robert Bouval's Orion Correlation Theory which both essentially discredits Zahi Hawass's work. I think the using the term `pseudoscience` is going too far when describing Hancock, though I know there was a BBC documentary where he was described that way. His work is supported and respected by many and I even dare say the most competent academics in their field. Hancock visits all the sites and talks to every expert he can. I believe he even spent 2 years performing over 200 dives to explore underwater sites off the coast in Japan. He takes this subject as seriously as anyone in the field and his commitment is undeniable. > Plus, you basically said it yourself: "Hancock gave an unbelievable presentation on the topic..." FWIW - I specifically chose those words for this reason :)

fractallyte 9y ago

I didn't downvote you, but it's most likely because Hancock's ideas are considered pseudoscientific. He has no academic credentials: has not subjected his ideas to peer review, or published in any recognized journals. Plus, you basically said it yourself: "Hancock gave an unbelievable presentation on the topic..." (That said, these lazy 'drive-by downvoters' are extremely annoying. If any of them are reading this, shame on you.)

sintaxi 9y ago
You are likely right. I don't refute that those accusations exist. Hancock is a curious writer who bases his theories on the discoveries of all disciplines such as geology, physics, engineering, & oral history, from both the academic and non-academic alike which a small handful of very powerful archeologists seem to have a large issue with. In particular Hancock refused to dismiss and instead validated Robert Schoch's Sphinx water erosion timeline and Robert Bouval's Orion Correlation Theory which both essentially discredits Zahi Hawass's work. I think the using the term `pseudoscience` is going too far when describing Hancock, though I know there was a BBC documentary where he was described that way. His work is supported and respected by many and I even dare say the most competent academics in their field. Hancock visits all the sites and talks to every expert he can. I believe he even spent 2 years performing over 200 dives to explore underwater sites off the coast in Japan. He takes this subject as seriously as anyone in the field and his commitment is undeniable. > Plus, you basically said it yourself: "Hancock gave an unbelievable presentation on the topic..." FWIW - I specifically chose those words for this reason :)