It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Thoughts on Graham Hancock??

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Jan, 20 2007 @ 10:13 PM
So I have recently been listening to some of Grahams older interviews with Art Bell and I am really enjoying some of his ideas.....I have not read any of his books yet but I think I may soon.

What are your guys thoughts on Graham and what book of his is the most enjoyable?

posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 04:45 PM
I have read Hancock's book "Talisman". (that's the only one of his I have) He cowrote that one with Robert Bauval. The book had some absolutely fascinating information in it, but the conclusions that the authors drew from that information just didn't sit right with me. Don't get me wrong, they did a lot of research, and the stuff that I checked elsewhere shows that of the ones I checked, they got their facts right. I just found it really hard to believe in the 'connections' that the authors put forward between gnosticism, cathars, masons, the US founding fathers, and all that. Some of their connections I could believe; for example, it doesn't seem too much of a stretch to imagine that gnosticism and catharism could be connected, but I'm pretty darned convinced that ancient Egyptian religion had nothing to do with the layout of the city plan for Paris or Washington, D.C.

Imagine, if you will, an atheist reading a book on religion. Suppose this hypothetical atheist loves the book. Suppose that this book is factually and historically correct, and well written. That atheist could love this book without actually believing in religion, and still concede that the facts therein are true, yet think that religion itself is a load of crap.

That's how I feel about Talisman. Great read. Historically fascinating. I just don't agree with the author's conclusions over what the facts they present mean.

Would I buy more of his books? I might. It would depend on the subject matter. has all of the books Hancock has written. Of the ones on that page, Underworld, Fingerprints of the Gods, and Lords of Poverty look the most interesting to me, and I'd consider picking those up if I saw them. Maybe the others, depending on the price, and what my backlog of books to read looked like (it's pretty backlogged right now :p)

posted on Jan, 21 2007 @ 05:26 PM
I find Graham Hancock to be one of the best and most serious of the researchers into the history of human civilizations and ancient archaeology of the past couple of decades.

Books to read (in order of their being published):
The Fingerprints of the Gods
Heaven's Mirror

His latest book, "Supernatural" is also very good, but deals with completely different, although fascinating and well researched, subject matter that delves more into a comparison of the culture that produced the ancient cave paintings and his own personal experiences with the present day shamans of South America, and the psycho active substances that they use.

He has written a few other books, some as a co-author, which are also very good, but I find his writings on ancient civilizations to be the most interesting and well researched.

Of all his books, I found "Talisman" to be my least favorite, and I also disagreed with some of the conclusions that were reached in that book, or at least found the conclusions to be more speculative than most of his own research.

There is also a video series that he put together a while back that I saw on TV a number of years ago, and it may be available on Google video. I can't remember the exact title (you could find it on his web site), but it was something like "The Search for the Lost Civilization". It was very well done.

If you like Graham Hancock, and books about ancient civilization in general, I would also recommend a book titled "Uriel's Machine" by Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas.

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 10:04 AM
I think he's a wonderful writer... but one of the worst researchers around (he doesn't investigate any other sides of an argument other than the one he favors.) His conclusions from the material he presents only works if you ignore everything else (the history and culture of the people.)

And he doesn't even try to verify by attempting to read the original material.

A+ on writing, D on scholarship

posted on Jan, 22 2007 @ 11:37 AM

Originally posted by SaucyRossy
So I have recently been listening to some of Grahams older interviews with Art Bell and I am really enjoying some of his ideas.....I have not read any of his books yet but I think I may soon.

What are your guys thoughts on Graham and what book of his is the most enjoyable?


Hancock is a scam artist out to make a buck. He knowingly repeats false information about archaeological discoveries (such as Von Daniken's interpretation of the carving in the Tomb of Pacal) to prop up his book-selling yet preposterous ideas about human history.

His books are not worth the paper they're printed on. If you just can't help yourself, then borrow his books from a library, or buy them at some used bookstore, so that you aren't lining a con man's pockets. And keep an eye on your wallet.

Why do I think this? Here's a few reasons from the Antiquity of Man website - the Pseudocience section:

An analysis of the quality of Graham Hancock's "science"

Open letter to Mr R.G. Bauval and Mr G. Hancock, dated 06 May 2001

Robert Bauval, Graham Hancock and their support for the Hindu creationist Michael Cremo, dated 24 December 2001

Tracing Graham Hancock's Shifting Cataclysm (Reprinted from The Skeptical Inquirer - by permission.)

Also, here's a webpage with links to a very large number of articles concerning the fluff drummed up by Hancock et al. as a means to retire from actually earning a living:

Lastly, if these examples of the trickery of Hancock and his ilk are not enough, I suggest you peruse Doug's Archaeology Site. Doug Weller, moderator at the Hall of Ma'at (linked above) is also a member here at ATS, though I haven't seen him post lately.

IOW, don't waste your money on Hancock, and any of his "work" that you read should be considered speculative fiction, which it actually is.


posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 04:56 AM

Made in 1999 and broadcast in 2000, the BBC's flagship science program (which is now in its 41st year) devoted a program to the subject of Atlantis, and in particular, the pseudohistorical theories of Graham Hancock.

Graham Hancock subsequently complained to the Broadcasting Standards Commission complaining of unfairness and bias in the way his theories were treated. The full adjudication noted the following:

The programme had created the impression that he (Graham Hancock) was an intellectual fraudster who had put forward half baked theories and ideas in bad faith, and that he was incompetent to defend his own arguments.
Adjudication: (The Commission) finds no unfairness to Mr Hancock in these matters.

this isn't someone with an agenda
this is the BBC
If they say hes an intellectual fraudster you can take that to the bank

[edit on 28-1-2007 by Marduk]

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 05:54 AM
I read Supernatural, which is touching on the areas I find most interesting. It was a good read but he's not really bringing anything new to the table with regards to drug induced, transcendental experiences, shamanism and the link to ancient cave art. It has brought it to a wider audience which is all to the good. I find though that like many paranormal researchers such as Patric Harpur their theories are well thought out but all the evidence is geared to that one theory. I prefer a more open minded approach.

posted on Jan, 28 2007 @ 06:13 AM
i found that in supernatural he tended to only present those details that agreed with the theory he came up with before he had even researched it
i.e. the cave paintings at Lascaux exist and there is no evidence that any drugs were present
concentrating on only those details that support your argument and ignoring those that don't or in his case pretending they don't exist is pseudoscience
its good fiction
but you shouldn't believe any of it unless you check it out for yourself

posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 05:13 PM
Hi there,

I hope that is OK to reply 2 weeks after a topic has been started.
Anyway, this is my first post.
I am reading "Supernatural" by Hancock. It is interesting, but I think Hancock approaches his subjects emotionally and not altogether objectively. In this book he does, in fact, mention dissenting opinions but he recounts them like he is personally angry with their proponents...even when they are long, long dead. If memory serves, he is trained as a journalist and not an archaeologist or anthropologist. But it doesn't seem he learned much detachment.

Having said all of that, I think that "Supernatural" is a really interesting read so far. I think I will always find his subject matter interesting, even if his motivations are suspect.

Brian CC

posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 05:26 PM
i'm going to have to agree with nygdan

the man is a terrific writer, but he just doesn't really get all of his facts straight, nor does he even consider that his own ideas may be a little far fetched

i think the man is fascinating
but wrong

posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 05:27 PM
Yeah, I found Hancock liked to ignore evidence that didn't support his claims. I haven't actually caught him lying about anything, but he does sometimes misrepresent things. I think I said it earlier here or in another post, but Hancock does a good job at presenting a set of facts, and a poor job at drawing any kind of conclusions from those facts.

I think if you supplement his works with other historical works, you would do well. Some of the stuff Hancock presents isn't widely available in most history books, and 'conventional' history will give you a broader perspective on things in general, whereas Hancock tends to look at more specific historical incidents. (and then tries to connect them in absurd ways :p)

posted on Feb, 14 2007 @ 07:07 PM

Originally posted by Marduk
i found that in supernatural he tended to only present those details that agreed with the theory he came up with before he had even researched it
i.e. the cave paintings at Lascaux exist and there is no evidence that any drugs were present

Much of the material Hancock used while speculating upon the archaeological record regarding shamanism came from one very good source..
David Lewis-Williams and his fine publication The Mind in the Cave.

That there was no evidence of drugs at the scene is rather moot, since more than 20-60 millenia had passed. returned to dust, as it were.

No cops will be charging in there to bust ancient Homo Sapiens getting happy with the Neanderthals.

That's not to say it didn't happen, though, because the evidence is in the art itself.

There are a lot of areas where Hancock speculates in his book, but shamanism is not one of them. In fact, he makes some fairly interesting connections to abduction experiences and the effects of trancing.

Nevertheless, most of the material is still based on Lewis-Williams studies.

Main page.
The contemporary Western emphasis on the supreme value of intelligence has tended to suppress certain forms of consciousness and to regard them as irrational, marginal, aberrant or even pathological and thereby to eliminate them from investigations of the deep past.

Peter Furst, then a research associate of the Harvard Botanical Museum, wrote, 'It is at least possible, though certainly not provable, that the practice of shamanism...may have involved from the first - that is, the very beginnings of religion itself - the psychedelic potential of the natural environment.' Without stressing the use of psychotropic plants to alter consciousness, James McClenon sums up the matter:'[S]hamanism, the result of cultural adaptation to biologically based [altered states of consciousness], is the origin of all later religious forms.' And Weston La Barre came to the same conclusion:'[A]ll the dissociative "altered states of consciousness" - hallucination, trance, possession, vision, sensory deprivation, and especially the REM-state dream - apart from their cultural contexts and symbolic content, are essentially the same psychic states found everywhere among mankind; ...shamanism or direct contact with the super­natural in these states. . . is the de facto source of all revelation, and ultimately of all religions.'

Bolding mine.

Notice he said without stressing psychotropic plants? I believe that too, since I know that certain practices such as fasting, dancing, drumming and various other methods are used to induce trance. The plants are only an 'easy road' and I'm sure these people knew about them so many millenia ago. One thing for sure, we're not going to find sombody's stash.

(Well, maybe...the Ice Man comes to mind here)

Anyways, the main point I'm making is that we shouldn't be too quick to toss the baby out with the bath water because Hancock is a fraud. The material he used from Lewis-Williams is IMHO not fraudulent.

posted on Feb, 15 2007 @ 02:15 AM
I wouldn't say he's a fraud, he does what a lot of authors do really adopts his own pet theory and sticks to it. John Keel and his ultraterrestrials is a far worse example of that than Hancock. The Haunted Planet reads almost like scriptural dogma to me.

posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 06:35 AM
really marduk,such belief in the bbc.if they thought his theories were bunk they wouldn't have needed to edit the show as they did

as i've mentioned on another thread,hancock asks interesting questions and makes you think outside the box.but some of his theories do have lots of holes in them,and hs seems to be good at ignoring evidence that may disprove something he believes in.

saying that though,i do enjoy his books.figerprints of the gods is good as is underworld.that has wonderful pictures of structures under the sea,and makes you ask the question,can nature create right angles?

we all know sea levels were different 1000's of years ago,and ppl are always drawn to living next to once the sea levels rise,it makes sence that these areas would disappear beneath the waves....

posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 07:50 AM
once again hes making it up as he goes along
for two reasons
1) the sea level rise that accompanied the end of the ice age wasn't immediate and catastrophic
it rose a few feet and took thousands of years to do so. the ice didn't melt all at one. it took a long time
2) there were no large centres of population living on the sea shore at that time. if there were you would have solid evidence firstly because they civilisation would have had plenty of time to move inland as the water didn't rise that quickly and secondly because Modern dna studies that show where everyone was living at the end of the ice age do not show sudden large populations appearing on coastlines as if they were running from the sea
when you consider that aroind 9500bce the world poulation was around 5 million (less than the current population of london) you can see why once again this claim by hancock just doesnt hold water (pun intended)

posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 08:43 AM
i don't dispute the 2 facts you mentioned.we all know that the ice caps are still melting,because of nature,not man.(not the point,i know.just thought i'd mention it
and i don't think these structures are cities,small towns or villages maybe,but not cities.i know that there is a lot of controversy over the dates of these underwater sites,are they even man-made etc,plus plenty of flights of fancy,right now that doesn't interest me.what does is that something that looks,to me, so obviously made by man is being branded as nothing more than the work of it really possible that nature could have created such structures? if anyone has other examples of this i would be very much interested in knowing about them.

posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 09:01 AM

Originally posted by ubermunche
I read Supernatural, which is touching on the areas I find most interesting. It was a good read

The problem I had with "Supernatural" is that he emphasized too much on cave paintings. I mean, I understand he had to write at least a chapter on it, but to devote a whole section on it was overkill in my opinion.

[edit on 28-2-2007 by SpeakerofTruth]

posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 09:01 AM
you're talking about Yonaguni
firstly there are plenty of examples of what seems to be man made structures turning out to be man made
secondly the culture that lived in that area was called the Jomon
they actually adapted the natural landscape to suit their needs and this structure is so like other structures known to be made by them that there is no mystery at all
Hancock has no point to make here
his claim that Yonaguni dates from the end of the ice age is based only on his speculation. the end of the ice age claim makes it impossible for the Jomon to have adapted this from a natural feature because they weren't around at that time
so Hnacock in effect is ignoring the real answer and substituting an answer that is not required and not supported by any data at all
as it is the data from sea level rises itself that he pretends supports his argument does not
the sea level has not risen enough since the ice age to submerge Yonaguni to that depth
the geology of the area does in fact create apparently man made structures all the time
heres one example

so once again
hes defrauding you with his claims and it only takes about ten minutes real research to see the truth of this

heres another one thats entirely natural

the giants causeway in ireland
see rock is by its nature crystalline
and crystalline structures fragment in very uniform patterns that to the uninitiated look man made
they aren't

[edit on 28-2-2007 by Marduk]

posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 09:03 AM
oh,and it is possible for whole civilzations to disappear.the hittite nation lay missing from history for 100's of years.the mayans disappeared,the olmecs too.the pueblo,the ppls who created the nazca lines,the ppls of cahokia,the ppls of catal huyuk...the list is endless...there is history still waiting to be discovered,and minds shouldn't be closed just because something isn't there.

posted on Feb, 28 2007 @ 09:06 AM
the hittite people didn't dissapear any more than the olmecs did
over time they became new cultures
likewise the maya didn't vanish off into outer space but that doesnt stop some people from writing books claiming that they did and it doesnt stop people from buying those books and believing it
theres a sucker born every minute
don't let the latest one be you
you've been reading biblical archaeology and pseudoscience again havent you

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in