Graham Hancock is really grood

[HBKSCM]

Here's Graham Hancock's site with a good introduction
http://www.grahamhancock.com/underworld/

[Moderator note: pasted text removed.]
Here are his books
http://www.grahamhancock.com/library/bookshop.php

He has done an incredibly successful job of challenging and pointing out the flaws of many conventional views about the past and history. He's very intelligent, knowledgable and experienced.

An interesting one is Heaven's Mirror : Quest for the Lost Civilization"

[Moderator note: pasted text removed.]

Here is an interesting article by him:
http://www.grahamhancock.com/underworld/un...underworld1.php (http://www.grahamhancock.com/underworld/underworld1.php)

another article about it quoted

[Moderator note: pasted text removed.]

Any "conventional" scientists who have tried to discredit him, got soundly defeated and embarassed
http://www.grahamhancock.com/horizon/default.htm

[Moderator note: pasted text removed.]

[HBKSCM]

Graham Hancock has raised many issues ignored by conventional scientists. He has done a good job of challenging the commonly held beliefs, and has withstood and answered scrutiny. His work is definitley based in reality and facts. It shows there are lost civilizations far back in history long before how far the current understanding goes.

I remember a show where he showed that the bimini road blocks, are all raised above the sea floor about 6 inches, by almost cone shaped( but stable, not pointed on the end) pillars at each corner. That doesn't look natural. He pointed out that the geologists who claimed it was natural did not even probably look underneath the blocks, or completely ignored that part.

The Underworld show showed, that at least some of them, are still propped above the ground by stones at the corners. WHy? Well, it would be a mystery then, like stonehenge

And even though this article claims there are no blocks placed on top of each other at bimini, I saw on the Underworld show that there are smaller pillar blocks placed underneath at the corners, almost holding the main blocks off the ground by several inches. There' also the fact that geologists themselves can't even agree on the age.
http://www.intersurf.com/~chalcedony/Bimini1.html

in like 10,000 years a lot of things are going to just simply disappear, or perhaps be only known in a few small traditions.

There are also some interesting above water sites around the bimini area. Ones that were not first discovered by archaeologists, but by the ARE( association of research and enlightenment) organization.


http://edgarcayce.org/am/biminiexpedition.html


He also showed there are clear cut man made archways, with astrological alignments underwater near Malta. The art around Malta is very similar to stone age, spiral-like art. There were teeth found near malta in a cave layer only possible at 12,000 years ago. Many skulls or skeletons from that cave mysteriously dissapeared and have never been dated. And then he found underwater clear cut archways and temples at Malta.


We know ancient cultures were very concerned with Feng Shui and astronomy, Grahan Hancock I'm sure is correct in his theories, as they are quite detailed and clearly documented with evidence, and the fact I just said, Feng Shui is a big part of ancient knowledge in many cultures.

Another thing that shows his knowledge, the Yonaguni megalith. 10 years ago several scientist who examined it thought it was natural, or maybe only altered by humans. Dr. Robert Schoch and John Anthony West thought it was natural upon first examination. However, even higher level scientists like Dr. Kimura stated, and risked their reputatiopn in stating it was man-made. Graham Hanock also thought it was man made, I believe. Now, with the newer discoveries of the giant statue and standium in another area nearby, I don't think many people think it's natural anymore

Here's a short video showing the similarities between South American sites and teh Yonaguni site
http://www.wonder-okinawa.jp/024/english/h...ht/024_0022.ram (http://www.wonder-okinawa.jp/024/english/hilight/024_0022.ram)

Here's a really good article on it-
http://www.pureinsight.org/pi/articles/200.../6/30/1678.html (http://www.pureinsight.org/pi/articles/2003/6/30/1678.html)

Here's a site with a lot of info an various underwater meagaliths including the "Bimini Road"
http://www.altarcheologie.nl/index.html?co...aracters_01.htm (http://www.altarcheologie.nl/index.html?connections/characters_01.htm)


And
http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/r..._gulf_of_cambay (http://www.sciencedaily.com/encyclopedia/ruins_in_the_gulf_of_cambay)
http://www.hermetics.org/cambay.html
http://www.world-mysteries.com/jgray.htm
http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly...y/aa011402a.htm (http://paranormal.about.com/library/weekly/aa011402a.htm)
http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/dynamic...s/0501/118.html (http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.hvk.org/articles/0501/118.html)


And his new work coming out October 2005, it's about altered states of conciousness and "Shamanism"-
http://www.grahamhancock.com/supernatural/


Release date October 2005
http://www.grahamhancock.com/supernatural/

[Moderator note: pasted text removed.]

There an interview with Mr. Graham Hancock in the new issue of SubRosa e-zine, starting on page 32
http://subrosa.dailygrail.com/PDF/SubRosa_...sue2-Single.pdf (http://subrosa.dailygrail.com/PDF/SubRosa_Issue2-Single.pdf)

Check out these painting done by Amazonian Shamans of their visions after drinking a brew made of the Ayuasca vine.
http://www.grahamhancock.com/gallery/supernatural/

[Moderator note: pasted text removed.]

[HBKSCM]

Interesting info on the Pyramid
http://www.rickrichards.com/egypt/Egypt6.htm
http://www.rickrichards.com/egypt/sec_8.gif
http://www.rickrichards.com/egypt/kh.gif
Why is the photograph of the cartouche in Figure 4 NOT an accurate representation of the SAME CARTOUCHE as depicted in Figure 3?

Based on Col. Howard Vyse's authentic historical record (dated May 27, 1837) I believe the original cartouche discovered in Campbell's Chamber looked exactly like that drawn in Figure 3 (the glob of paint looks like excess paint to me.)

But why does the modern-day photograph look so different from the original drawing of the same cartouche?

I believe that days or years or centuries or millennia later, someone (Vyse? or a modern-day Egyptian restoration project?) realized the circle needed THREE crosshatches inside it in order to correctly spell the letters "Kh" (as in Khufu) and painted three (3) crosshatches in the circle, the middle crosshatch covering the ORIGINAL DOT in the center, which is depicted in Fig.3. But, while the forger(s?) painted the new crosshatches, they inadvertently made another dreadful mistake -— They didn't quite cover up the entire DOT in the center that was originally drawn! (see Fig.3)

Examine Fig.4 again, this time VERY CLOSELY. The middle crosshatch has a very obvious and suspicious bulge in its center. I believe this bulge WAS originally A DOT at one time, particularly on May 27, 1837 when the historic discovery was first made and recorded (drawn.)

If any of you are wondering about the red, ochre paint used (by Vyse) to paint the inscriptions, interestingly enough, the same red, ochre paint the ancient Egyptians used was still in use in 1837.


Info on the Sphinx's underground tunnels
http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/HO-OSIRIS.html
Dr. Joseph Schor of The Schor Foundation. Schor had obtained an annually renewable five-year license to conduct acoustic and radar surveys on the Giza plateau under the direction of Florida State University. Said had entered into a joint-venture with Schor to film the work for a new documentary.

The sight he saw was very different to the one shown to the world on the FOX TV Special. A pile of muddy debris extended from the eastern side of the room and tapered off at the sides into the water. Towards the centre the partially buried enclosure also full of water broke through the debris. Said’s crew scraped away at the dirt on the chamber’s eastern side to clear a flat area for the camera tripod. It quickly became apparent that a smooth hard surface was becoming exposed. As more was revealed, a dark sarcophagus lid came into view. vs.

I have found a shaft, going 29 meters [95 feet approximately] vertically down into the ground, exactly halfway between the Chefren Pyramid [the middle pyramid] and the Sphinx. At the bottom, which was filled with water, we have found a burial chamber with four pillars. In the middle is a large granite sarcophagus which I expect to be the grave of Osiris, the god... I have been digging in Egypt's sand for more than 30 years, and up to date this is the most exciting discovery I have made...


1997, in dirt
http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/borissaid4.jpg

vs.

1999, submerged in a pool of water
http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/OSOut/Osiris/preview/osa15.jpg
http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/osiris5xx.jpg
http://phoenix.akasha.de/~aton/osirus2zz.jpg


http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Parliament/2191/GreatPyramid.htm
all three Great Pyramids were constructed within a century. Assuming very low numbers, the pyramids consist of 2.5 million stone blocks for each of the large 2 pyramids, and 1.0 million stone blocks for the small one giving 6.0 million stones to be cut, hauled, shaped, lifted and postioned in 100 years.

6,000,000 blocks / 1200 months = 5000 blocks laid per month

5000 blocks / 30 days per month = 166.6 blocks laid per day

166.6 blocks / 24 hour working day = 6.9 blocks laid per hour

So given very generous figures, the Egyptologists want you to believe that the Egyptions were able to complete (at a bare minimum) 7 stone blocks weighing 2.0-2.5 Tons every hour of every day for 100 years without days off for accidents or bad weather etc, using only primitive stone and copper tools, plant-fiber ropes and wooden sledges.

lol http://www.redmoonrising.com/Giza/OsirisTomb1.htm

News about fraud and corruption in Egypt
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2005/764/eg4.htm

http://www.keysofenoch.org/html/giza_update.html
http://www.lyghtforce.com/Giza/


Unknown symbols in the Pyramid shaft "door"?
http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=000539
http://guardians.net/hawass/articles/images/RoboticExploration/photo%20006_sm.jpg
http://www.multimediastudio.fi/pictures/shaft_door_left_handle1.jpg

[HBKSCM]

http://www.multimediastudio.fi/pictures/shaft_door_left_handle2.jpg
http://www.multimediastudio.fi/pictures/shaft_door_left_handle3.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~tpburke/Google_images/shaft1zoom.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~tpburke/Google_images/shaft1zoomcut1.jpg
http://home.comcast.net/~tpburke/Google_images/shaft1zoomcut1drawn3.JPG
http://home.comcast.net/~tpburke/Google_images/shaft1negzoomcroplined.JPG

This could be interesting, Name of God on Pyramid?
http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=000542
http://www.mts.net/~perasa/Mysterean.htm
http://www.mts.net/~perasa/Great%20Pyramid%20enhanced_Riven4.jpg
http://www.mts.net/~perasa/Great%20Pyramid%20enhanced_Riven3.jpg

[HBKSCM]

http://forums.atlantisrising.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=14;t=000031
http://www.lhconklin.com/images/agate10_sm.jpg
http://www.clearapath.com/The_all-seeing_eye_inside_the_pyramid_-_200.jpg

http://www.gizapower.com/

[HBKSCM]

In the 1990s the evidence of water erosion determined the Sphinx to be built in 6,000 BC to 10,000 BC, as opposed to the previously held 2500 BC dating for the Sphinx

Redating the sphinx-
http://members.aol.com/davidpb4/sphinx1.html

I noticed this site because of the first part, talking about the Re-dating of the Sphinx, but there's a lot of other suff on there too it looks like
http://www.violations.org.uk/index.htm


On 23rd October 1991, Schoch presented his material to the Geological Society of America, where it was grudgingly accepted rather than embraced

The American Association for the Advancement of Science scheduled a session to debate the issue at its annual general meeting in Chicago on 7th February 1992. Lehner attended along with geologist K. Lal Gauri of the University of Louisville, who had also studied the Sphinx for many years. West also attended and presented his arguments. (17)
Once again, the water erosion findings were endorsed even though Egyptologists themselves could not bring themselves to accept the implications of this endorsement. The AAAS meeting broke up in words that, according to the New York Times "skated on the icy edge of scientific politeness" also-
http://www.robertschoch.net/

and-
http://www.jawest.net/

[HBKSCM]

A Hoax claiming the Bimini Road was all only natural formations was apparently perpetrated by skeptics to discourage research there
http://www.i-newswire.com/pr49748.html
http://www.mysterious-america.net/biminihoax.html
http://www.mysterious-america.net/Resources/Bimini%20HarborScreen2.pdf

[gwiz]

I seem to remember a programme on UK TV a couple of years ago in which Hancock had to backtrack considerably on some of his ideas. Any one around with a better memory for the details?

[HBKSCM]

you mean the show this bit was about?
In an unprecedented step, the Broadcasting Standards Commission, an organisation appointed to uphold standards and fairness in UK broadcasting, has found the BBC guilty of unfairly representing alternative history authors Graham Hancock and Robert Bauval in a programme broadcast in November of last year.

The BBC 2 programme, entitled Atlantis Reborn, was part of the flagship Horizon strand of science-oriented documentaries. The programme-makers, Bettina Lerner (series editor), Christopher Hale (director/producer), and Julian Hudson (researcher), claimed to provide a balanced and objective "testing" of unorthodox theories relating to the development of human civilisation. Now the Broadcasting Standards Commission has judged that the central part of their attack on Hancock and Bauval was unfair. It appears this is the first time in Horizon's 35-year history that it has been found guilty of unfairness by an independent commission. The BSC's finding is therefore a severe blow to Horizon's well-established reputation for even-handedness.

no, he never backtracked on the things they said or their false criticisms. They took his comments totally out of context and didn't play his full expanations. He won the decision and the show was either taken off the air, or had to me changed and re-aired, giving Mr. Hancock enough time to fully explain his findings, as well as to reply to criticisms, which he easily can and did do, but they didn't want to air his resonses on their show, and that's not really fair to him is it?

[gwiz]

No, this was a different programme made by Hancock. And the complaint against the BBC was dismissed except for one point, see this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Hancock) which includes the quote: "[The Commission] finds no unfairness to Mr Hancock in these matters".

[Wolverine]

HBKSCM is a sock puppet of the previously-banned Kilik (http://www.bautforum.com/member.php?u=11083).

I've re-banned him and merged all four newest threads into this one.

[Wolverine]

Since this has almost nothing to do with science, topic moved from General Science to BABBling.

[grant hutchison]

No, this was a different programme made by Hancock. And the complaint against the BBC was dismissed except for one point, see this link (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_Hancock) which includes the quote: "[The Commission] finds no unfairness to Mr Hancock in these matters".The BBC website provides a point-by-point listing (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2000/atlantisreborn_bsc_synopsis.shtml) of the complaints and adjudications as listed in the Broadcasting Standards Commission report. This includes the following pithy judgement: [Complaint:] The programme had created the impression that he [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.
The programme was subsequently rebroadcast with some editing in response to the single complaint that was upheld: Hancock and Bauval were given time to reply to Krupp's contention that their pyramid / Orion correlation is somehow "upside down", which has always been a rather weak "flaw", especially given the gaping holes highlighted in the rest of the programme.

Grant Hutchison

Edit: I failed to notice that gwiz's link includes the same specific quote from the BSC's judgement. It's well worth repeating, though :).

[Eta C]

Sort of reminds me of the end of Leon Uris' novel QB VII. In that novel an author writes a book that accuses a highly respected doctor of having been involved in medical experiments during the Holocaust. The doctor sues the author for "damages to his reputation." In the course of the trial it comes out that everything the author brought up is true. The jury, nonetheless, finds for the doctor and awards him one-half cent for the damages to his "reputation."

[jrkeller]

Hancock's Mars book used to sold here at Space Center Houston. I complained several times that a pseudo-science book like that shouldn't be sold at a place that prides itself of science and engineering. After several tries it is no longer sold.