3 ms·

> He’s a great populariser of bullshit. Interesting theories but nothing over 30 years of building unsubstantiated theories out of thin threads of evidence tha

> He’s a great populariser of bullshit. Interesting theories but nothing over 30 years of building unsubstantiated theories out of thin threads of evidence that aren’t connected What about his work that led to the acceptance of the Younger Dryas period being a result of the asteroid impact, that was refuted in academia for so long that is now been proven with time? That revelation alone is worth more PhDs than most entire departments create in a decade!

robbiep 6y ago
I’m not hugely familiar with his contributions to this, but if you throw 10,000 darts at a board, you get one bullseye. It doesn’t make you a genius. As another poster said, his theories are interesting (I spent several days as a teenager running through all sorts of measurements trying to work out the megalithic yard and see if door measurements/side measurements in other monuments could be related, and found it fascinating when in the sign and the seal/hiriam’s key the original of the megalithic yard was discovered), but the benal/fascinating realities of the unit of measurement are a long way from the phantasmagorical claims made in heaven’s mirror and fingerprints of the gods
- Melting_Harps 6y ago
  > You throw 10,000 darts at a board, you get one bullseye. It doesn’t make you a genius That's not a very good dismissal of the man's work, like I said that revelation alone is as solid as an entire University's department of post doc and grad students combined. It's overturned so many people's dissertations and the narrative of how the Ice Age ended, specifically to the migration of People into the Americas from Eurasia that has so many implications in other departments like biology. Also, his observations of water erosion on Egyptian pyramids is very compelling, and places it way before the modern Egyptian narrative if its true as nothing provided by modern Egyptologists really explains how deep it is. Wind/sand erosion cannot carve that deeply, especially since so much of the pyramids was under sand until maybe only modern times when it became a large part of the Egyptian economy via tourism, thus preserving it from further erosion.
  - robbiep 6y ago
    I had a reply here but on further thought I decided I would do some reading on Hancock’s contribution to the Younger Dryas hypothesis. Wiki not only suggests that he wasn’t the first but that his contributions to theories largely amount to other claims which are just as hard to substantiate (ie cyclical nature of impacts) [0]. So really it seems that he hasn’t contributed a huge amount to this field at all apart from being another voice amongst many, when the claim has still not been fully substantiated by the geological record. An area worthy of more study, but it’s hardly ‘his’ contribution To say that this guy has thrown 10,000 darts and come up with hardly anything is absolutely an accurate way to characterise Hancock’s work. I also think it’s quite disingenuous to claim that modern Egyptologists are unable to claim ‘how’ ‘water’ erosion exists there (or even if it is water erosion) - there’s not only a decent chunk of carbon dating from ie. The camps next to the pyramids used by the builders but on an Occam’s razor perspective the consensus is the one most substantiated by existing evidence. And don’t go into an argument about how groupthink dictates too much of consensus, as a doctor and scientist I understand the need for alternative hyptheses and I’ve found Hancock’s theories to be very interesting, but he makes a literal living out of pareidolia - he sees faces in every group of shadows, and vociferously denies they were just shadows when the lights are turned on. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothe...
pps 6y ago
What work? Doesn't look like he did much https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesi... and it doesn't look like there is consensus about it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas#Causes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas#Causes
- ncmncm 6y ago
  That page is "curated" by a retired historian with a grudge. Take a look at the revision history of the page, where you see him routinely reversing revisions that would improve the page -- particularly, reversing deletions of irrelevant but prejudicial content. There is no reason to mention Graham Hancock on the page at all, or any century-old stories. They are there just to muddy the water, and to give the ex-professor a soapbox for name-calling. The evidence is presented in a deliberately confused order, and very selectively. New evidence is not permitted. Wikipedia is ruled by people like that, now. We have to wait for them to die before we can have pages not somebody's hobby-horse.
simonh 6y ago
Hancock didn't originate the theory an impact contributed to the Younger Dryas event, nor has he originated any evidence or research towards substantiating it. So other than mentioning it in some books and talk shows, what was his contribution that merits a PhD?
- Melting_Harps 6y ago
  > Hancock didn't originate the theory an impact contributed to the Younger Dryas event, nor has he originated any evidence or research towards substantiating it. So other than mentioning it in some books and talk shows, what was his contribution that merits a PhD? I didn't say he was the only one to do so, but he put in the work to get observational data and brought to the mainstream archeaologists and historians who wrote countless works and based their dissertations on their 'irrefutable fact' of how the Ice Age ended which never included an asteroid impact and he staunchly challenged academia as a JOURNALIST and did the legwork with his colleagues who were actually trained archeologists and documented his observations. And just so it's clear: I'm not parroting academia's indoctrination it forced me to bend to, but Wikipedia is not a valid source for citation for a reason, and if I had submitted a paper referencing it was dismissed entirely. But here is an essay from the Man himself if you are so inclined to read it [0]. I think his work is notable and his contributions worthy and have merit, which is honestly much more than what many people based their PhDs on when they make arguments about things like the extinction of wooly mammoths and other mega fauna as result of Human over hunting. When NOTHING could explain these massive dead zones, but were none the less awarded degrees for their findings. 0: https://grahamhancock.com/hancockg17/ https://grahamhancock.com/hancockg17/
  - simonh 6y ago
    No reputable scientist deals in 'irrefutable facts' like that, only evidence. If you're going to put quotes on something like that, I think it's reasonable to ask for a reference. I'm just wondering, can you give examples of the research papers for these PhDs or degrees where you evaluated them and found them insufficiently rigorous. It sounds like this has happened a lot, so are there any resources on this I can read? Hancock's pop sci summary of other people's work you linked to is entertaining, but are we really surprised that geologists 100 years ago had a limited understanding of the history of the earth? That controversy was 40 years before we even came up with plate tectonics. It's hardly cutting edge stuff.

robbiep 6y ago

I’m not hugely familiar with his contributions to this, but if you throw 10,000 darts at a board, you get one bullseye. It doesn’t make you a genius. As another poster said, his theories are interesting (I spent several days as a teenager running through all sorts of measurements trying to work out the megalithic yard and see if door measurements/side measurements in other monuments could be related, and found it fascinating when in the sign and the seal/hiriam’s key the original of the megalithic yard was discovered), but the benal/fascinating realities of the unit of measurement are a long way from the phantasmagorical claims made in heaven’s mirror and fingerprints of the gods

Melting_Harps 6y ago
> You throw 10,000 darts at a board, you get one bullseye. It doesn’t make you a genius That's not a very good dismissal of the man's work, like I said that revelation alone is as solid as an entire University's department of post doc and grad students combined. It's overturned so many people's dissertations and the narrative of how the Ice Age ended, specifically to the migration of People into the Americas from Eurasia that has so many implications in other departments like biology. Also, his observations of water erosion on Egyptian pyramids is very compelling, and places it way before the modern Egyptian narrative if its true as nothing provided by modern Egyptologists really explains how deep it is. Wind/sand erosion cannot carve that deeply, especially since so much of the pyramids was under sand until maybe only modern times when it became a large part of the Egyptian economy via tourism, thus preserving it from further erosion.
- robbiep 6y ago
  I had a reply here but on further thought I decided I would do some reading on Hancock’s contribution to the Younger Dryas hypothesis. Wiki not only suggests that he wasn’t the first but that his contributions to theories largely amount to other claims which are just as hard to substantiate (ie cyclical nature of impacts) [0]. So really it seems that he hasn’t contributed a huge amount to this field at all apart from being another voice amongst many, when the claim has still not been fully substantiated by the geological record. An area worthy of more study, but it’s hardly ‘his’ contribution To say that this guy has thrown 10,000 darts and come up with hardly anything is absolutely an accurate way to characterise Hancock’s work. I also think it’s quite disingenuous to claim that modern Egyptologists are unable to claim ‘how’ ‘water’ erosion exists there (or even if it is water erosion) - there’s not only a decent chunk of carbon dating from ie. The camps next to the pyramids used by the builders but on an Occam’s razor perspective the consensus is the one most substantiated by existing evidence. And don’t go into an argument about how groupthink dictates too much of consensus, as a doctor and scientist I understand the need for alternative hyptheses and I’ve found Hancock’s theories to be very interesting, but he makes a literal living out of pareidolia - he sees faces in every group of shadows, and vociferously denies they were just shadows when the lights are turned on. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothe...

pps 6y ago

What work? Doesn't look like he did much https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesi... and it doesn't look like there is consensus about it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas#Causes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas#Causes

ncmncm 6y ago
That page is "curated" by a retired historian with a grudge. Take a look at the revision history of the page, where you see him routinely reversing revisions that would improve the page -- particularly, reversing deletions of irrelevant but prejudicial content. There is no reason to mention Graham Hancock on the page at all, or any century-old stories. They are there just to muddy the water, and to give the ex-professor a soapbox for name-calling. The evidence is presented in a deliberately confused order, and very selectively. New evidence is not permitted. Wikipedia is ruled by people like that, now. We have to wait for them to die before we can have pages not somebody's hobby-horse.

simonh 6y ago

Hancock didn't originate the theory an impact contributed to the Younger Dryas event, nor has he originated any evidence or research towards substantiating it. So other than mentioning it in some books and talk shows, what was his contribution that merits a PhD?

Melting_Harps 6y ago
> Hancock didn't originate the theory an impact contributed to the Younger Dryas event, nor has he originated any evidence or research towards substantiating it. So other than mentioning it in some books and talk shows, what was his contribution that merits a PhD? I didn't say he was the only one to do so, but he put in the work to get observational data and brought to the mainstream archeaologists and historians who wrote countless works and based their dissertations on their 'irrefutable fact' of how the Ice Age ended which never included an asteroid impact and he staunchly challenged academia as a JOURNALIST and did the legwork with his colleagues who were actually trained archeologists and documented his observations. And just so it's clear: I'm not parroting academia's indoctrination it forced me to bend to, but Wikipedia is not a valid source for citation for a reason, and if I had submitted a paper referencing it was dismissed entirely. But here is an essay from the Man himself if you are so inclined to read it [0]. I think his work is notable and his contributions worthy and have merit, which is honestly much more than what many people based their PhDs on when they make arguments about things like the extinction of wooly mammoths and other mega fauna as result of Human over hunting. When NOTHING could explain these massive dead zones, but were none the less awarded degrees for their findings. 0: https://grahamhancock.com/hancockg17/ https://grahamhancock.com/hancockg17/
- simonh 6y ago
  No reputable scientist deals in 'irrefutable facts' like that, only evidence. If you're going to put quotes on something like that, I think it's reasonable to ask for a reference. I'm just wondering, can you give examples of the research papers for these PhDs or degrees where you evaluated them and found them insufficiently rigorous. It sounds like this has happened a lot, so are there any resources on this I can read? Hancock's pop sci summary of other people's work you linked to is entertaining, but are we really surprised that geologists 100 years ago had a limited understanding of the history of the earth? That controversy was 40 years before we even came up with plate tectonics. It's hardly cutting edge stuff.