Source
r/GrahamHancock•
Jagman1011

Hancock and Carlson’s logic;

Okay so I’m just curious what other peoples take on this is, I’m watching the Jre podcast #961 with Michael Shermer who is a skeptic. I can’t help but see the blatant disregard for the evidence at hand so it makes me wonder if there’s really a widespread pushback across the globe to this idea, is it really that hard to believe? I mean the evidence they bring is hard for me to dispute, I look at the example of the sphinx and how the erosion patterns don’t match up with the current estimated age. Obviously there’s other possibilities but they seem pretty logically sound on most of their arguments. So again I’m just curious to know if this is a lot more mainstream than it seems or if it’s still widely criticized.

Posted Jun 28, 2022, 7:18 PM UTC

2934
SgtSiggy•

Established academics, who we hold in our society as the optimal sources of information in specialized subjects like archeology/anthropology/geology etc, dont always accept new discoveries right away. There is usually a lag. Overcome by overwhelming evidence or public support.

Why? Partly because every year they make money on re-releasing textbooks with tiny updates, and its easier to re-word things then to learn new material, and reshape your ENTIRE body of work! Imagine a small discovery but an important one, that sends ripples through all of the work youve been educating yourself on and spreading to others for years and years.

Partly its an ego thing; "I'm an expert academic, whatever new discovery you found must be an anomaly". The top academics in the world can shake off new discoveries which hurts the ability to bring that information to the world.

17
Jagman1011OP•

This is was my opinion on it to be honest. I understood they had built years of reputation off of this work but I just didn’t think it would be as widely disputed. Obviously you take every new discovery with a grain of salt until the context and evidence has been discussed but I mean to me there seems to be a very reasonable argument for even an idea that’s similar to Hancocks, Randall, J.A.W., etc…

6
SgtSiggy•

Gobeckli Tepe is literally the most hard evidence for the case Graham and Randall make, which is a more sophisticated civilization existed before the cataclysm that occurred 11,600-12,800 years ago. Yet in schools we're still taught about Mesopotamia 6000 years ago being the start of farming, domestication of animals, math etc.

I point any doubters to Gobeckli Tepe, and debate is over. I am still personally fascinated by the deeper evidence of misunderstanding our past (sphinx erosion, trilithon, precision of the great pyramid, etc) but hardcore evidence with Gobekli broke the MSM notion of our past. Before that, the MSM would always say "if civilization started before the younger dryas ice age, we would have found things by now!" well.... we finally did!

It was fun reading Grahams work years ago and just waiting for the world to catchup

10
sheytanelkebir•

Neolithic farming and villages is attested to in the normal archaeology. Whilst sumer provides a clarity that makes it very easy to document their history from 3500bc onwards (written records). Ww already do know about and acknowledge the neolithic period human developments and settlements including gobekli tepe, ain ghazal and many others.

1
BetaKeyTakeaway•

Göbekli is littered with stone tools (mostly flint), food remnants of game (mostly gazelle) and wild grains, no writing, no metal, no ceramics, no domesticated species, ... Nothing beyond neolithic technology.

It's evidence that people in the region lived in permanent settlements earlier, and carved, moved and decorated large stones earlier than there was previously evidence for. None even remotely suggests or requires a civilization, that's just jumping to unfounded conclusions.

Same with the trillionth, the great pyramid, etc. The evidence supports a far younger age, but people who believe in an older civilization date them to that civilization despite all the evidence to the contrary and the lack of evidence for an older date.

And then as the ultimate projection, academics are being called dogmatic.

-1†
xoverthirtyx•

Yeah the later civilization that cared for it and buried it with obviously inferior skill couldn’t have possibly left behind their scraps /s. Seriously though you can just google when agriculture started in Turkey and it’s agreed to be 10-11k years ago.

1
crisselll•

This is the most uneducated opinion on GT. You should read up more before jumping to unfounded conclusions.

1
coltd89•

In “America Before” and “Magicians of the Gods” Graham talks in more detail about this sort of stuff.

2
PunisherASM129•

Exactly right and you see this "phenomenon" is just about any field of endeavor.

3
SkinSuitAdvocate•

The people who have the most to gain from the status quo want regular people to forget that empires rise and fall.

10
rossdrawsstuff•

Who are those people and how does that connect with Michael Shermer’s disagreement with Hancock and Carlson?

0
RadconRanger•

I have had skepticism of history stuff since I was little. I like C&H because they aren’t too much about “this is the Ruth now!” As they are about “maybe we admit we have no idea about x”. The academic people only have shift to the perspective that @we have evidence for x, but it doesn’t make much sense, so we think y and should change if we find out more”. I kind of cannot understand why this is so hard.

2
davidstighansen•

When I saw them in person in Sedona Arizona , I'd say their great message was that the Younger Dryas Event reset humanity. Thus Hancock's main theme, we are a species suffering amnesia. Carlson supports it by demonstrating that if humanity needed 10,000 years to get to where we are now, we could have done it many times over during the existence of humanity. Further he gives us a timeline of cataclysms that goes back more than 150,000 years that could have reset humanity, so not only could the YDE have effected our advancement, so could a number of others.

2
Altruism7•

It’s a mixture of not caring and trusting the elites by the mainstream when it comes to archeology to sum it up

1
xSTAYCOOLx•

randal carlson has a youtube channel. theres a lot of amazing pictures he has.

https://www.youtube.com/c/TheRandallCarlson

im on episode 41 right now. theres a lot of geologic evidence he talks about. he had one of the guys from the comet research team on (i think thats the group he was from).

1
Nodeal_reddit•

Separate Carlson from Hancock. Carlson talks about a great cataclysm that impacted the earth ~12k years ago. There’s lots of evidence for this and science is coming around.

Hancock believes that this cataclysm wiped out all civilization except a small core of relatively advanced society. Missionaries form this society then sailed around the world teaching natives how to build pyramids and get stoned on psychedelics. There unfortunately is a lot less hard evidence for his theory, and he often discredits himself by making all kinds of far-reaching connections that are circumstantial at best. Since people feel that they can disprove a part of his hypothesis, they assume that the whole thing is bunk. I’m inclined to think that his theories are plausible, but I’m not convinced they are fact. There’s just way too much conjecture.

1
Jagman1011OP•

This is exactly my outlook on it but obviously I’m your own words. I look at Carlson data with way more credibility than a journalist, no shade towards Hancock but I recognize that he is accumulating other peoples research while Carlson actually DOES the research. Hancock indeed loses me at his far out reaching ideas, I respect them and they open the door for more conversation about the possibilities. I could definitely see there being more too human history than what we currently know, I don’t think that’s a hard argument to make. I can see how there could be past civilizations that did know more than other humans at the time. Honestly grahams ideas are just more ‘fun’ to think about and it’s cool to discuss them. Other than that Hancock is just a good author and journalist, as he claims, not a scientist.

3
PennFifteen•

Yes I'd say spot on. We have to also be aware that these things we belive around here may be completely off. It's healthy to keep the perspective

1
crisselll•

Your summation of GH and his ideas is circumstantial at best.

0
BetaKeyTakeaway•

Being a skeptic is fine and good, but if you don't know the subject matter, you won't be able to refute nonsense.

The problem with "Hancock's" ideas, which are mostly rehashed ideas that are centuries old, is that they don't stand up to scrutiny. Instead of telling you why academics have accepted a certain explaination, he omits certain evidence and resorts to ad hominem attacks, like that they are too dogmatic, dishonest, etc.

His approach is as pseudoscientific as it gets.

On the water erosion on the Sphinx. "More erosion therefore older", is so simple and logical that it's easy to sell. But when you get into the details it makes as much sense as "the emptier a glass the earlier it was filled". It's based on begging the question ("too much erosion"), making false comparisons to unnamed mastabas and the Tomb of Debenen, neglecting topology and prior erosion and jumping to conclusions.

The water erosion dating was predetermined by Atlantis, as Schoch admits himself now. All his geologic arguments were just ad hoc explanations to substantiate the date he had already accepted.

-8
Jagman1011OP•

You’re misrepresenting what the issue is with the sphinx, it’s not that it was MORE erosion it’s that it was WATER erosion. Which doesn’t seem important until you realize rainfall hadn’t been in Egypt for thousands of years prior. So why does the stone resemble patterns of water erosion? Robert shoch was speaking to a group of geologists and they agreed that the erosion was from water and then they were surprised to find out he was talking about the sphinx.

8
zarmin•

There is zero chance you are engaging with someone who is arguing in good faith. Having made the same arguments you are making countless times, I would advise you to bail on this exchange (unless you like the sport of it, then by all means go nuts).

8
BetaKeyTakeaway•

It's not just water erosion, it's runoff erosion.

That rainfall hadn't been in Egypt is just factually incorrect. Even nowadays it rains a few times a year.

Back then flash flood were common, hence many tombs are filled with mud deposits.

There's more erosion such erosion at the Sphinx because it's a the bottom of the plateau and a large area drains into the enclosure.

Schoch never explains why the rain of the past 4,500 years wouldn't be enough to cause the erosion.

Robert shoch was speaking to a group of geologists and they agreed that the erosion was from water and then they were surprised to find out he was talking about the sphinx.

Nope, it was Anthony West (who thought it was erosion from the biblical flood) who showed Schoch the Sphinx with the head covered. And Schoch was surprised that it was the Sphinx. The crux of the issue is that Schoch then never argued that the Sphinx showed much rain erosion, only the enclosure.

Geologists never agreed with his reasoning.

-3
Jagman1011OP•

It’s not that it didn’t rain it’s the amount out would take to cause the type of erosion they found. This is my interpretation of Schochs work and maybe I’m not aware of some things but I listened to his episode on jre as well as well as looking at some of his articles and thought that was the conclusion he came too.

1
BetaKeyTakeaway•

That's the begging the question I mentioned, that it was "not enough" in that time span.

He never calculated or assessed that. He just made false comparisons and this was his conjecture because he wanted to date it to Atlantean times (like West did based on the biblical flood).

-1
xoverthirtyx•

It can’t be run-off from the last 4k years because the enclosure fills with sand in a matter of weeks if not tended to; the enclosure and core body’s erosion is from the earlier tropical epoch, not the fleeting time it was exposed in the desert for a pharaoh to re-carve the head (and then get reburied for millennia).

1
BetaKeyTakeaway•

the enclosure fills with sand in a matter of weeks if not tended to

Link the source please that came up with that, or did you just make that up?

0