"Counter opinion" and "roasted" always makes me raise an eyebrow, so I looked up Graham Hancock on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graham_HancockGraham Hancock --America Before. I liked the netflix series, so I decided to get the book. Had to get it in hardback. Too many pictures that would not work on my kindle. I really hate reading hardbacks. My takeaway so far is you have a counter opinion in archeology, you will most likely know what it is like to be roasted in the depths of a Sloar. Graham Hancock seems to chug along.
A cursory read of his ideas is reminiscent of an extremely popular book in the 1960s published in 1950 by Immanuel Velikovsky, called Worlds in Collision. It had a lot of popular appeal but was skewered by the scientific community, about an ancient catastrophic event resulting from the Earth coming in close contact with Venus and Mars, leading to all sorts of events like mass extinctions, biblical flood and plagues, etc. I read it in my youth and it made quite an impression on me until I started learning some physics and astronomy and could view it critically.
As a self-admitted die-hard skeptic, if I am not an expert in a field, it only makes sense to me to be way more skeptical about an outlier's view ,especially if it sounds rather extraordinary, like that " an advanced civilization with spiritual technology existed during the last Ice Age until it was destroyed following comet impacts around 12,900 years ago" (from Wikipedia entry on Hancock), than I am about a broad consensus of known and respected experts in that field.
Statistics: Posted by protagonist — Wed Jan 29, 2025 7:30 pm