Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

Secret Bottom Part of Great Pyramid


Bennu

Recommended Posts

On 13/12/2018 at 2:02 PM, third_eye said:

THat depends on how one wants to read it doesn't it ? He writes pretty good, fact is he is very good, what he writes about may not be everybody's cuppa java or tea but hey. that's how the shelves are filled.

If there's anything I liked best is his collection of Reference Notes and Bibliographies plus a great recommended reading list on top of that. Value for money right there.

~

No you don't understand. I'm not saying its not entertaining. I'm saying its pseudo history. That's the bit you needed to focus on. Pseudo history is basically rewriting history, and almost always has an agenda. 

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Emma_Acid said:

No you don't understand. I'm not saying its not entertaining. I'm saying its pseudo history. That's the bit you needed to focus on. Pseudo history is basically rewriting history, and almost always has an agenda. 

You mean to say, that these people are objectively rejecting evidence in favour of continuously believing in whatever narrative they ascribe to. Surely this doesn't happen again and again and again and again .................. again here.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Emma_Acid said:

No you don't understand. I'm not saying its not entertaining. I'm saying its pseudo history. That's the bit you needed to focus on. Pseudo history is basically rewriting history, and almost always has an agenda. 

I have no idea what everybody is going on about an 'agenda'

What I do know is, as far as I am aware, he has never claimed to be rewriting anything, all he did was asked questions. Entertain possibilities. Back in the days before Gobekli he was already entertaining ideas that maybe something like Gobekli may be out there yet to be found, so what ?

Did he say that History has to be rewritten? Perhaps some aspects needs to be reexamined closer with the kind to tools available today that were not available back in the 18th and 19th century, which is what is being done today. I don't know what the big bruha is to be honest, he is an author, he writes, if he is successful all the more power to him. if not, I don't think anyone is going to start burning his books in front of Bookstores across the world. At least I don't believe so

~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, third_eye said:

I have no idea what everybody is going on about an 'agenda'

What I do know is, as far as I am aware, he has never claimed to be rewriting anything, all he did was asked questions. Entertain possibilities. Back in the days before Gobekli he was already entertaining ideas that maybe something like Gobekli may be out there yet to be found, so what ?

Did he say that History has to be rewritten? Perhaps some aspects needs to be reexamined closer with the kind to tools available today that were not available back in the 18th and 19th century, which is what is being done today. I don't know what the big bruha is to be honest, he is an author, he writes, if he is successful all the more power to him. if not, I don't think anyone is going to start burning his books in front of Bookstores across the world. At least I don't believe so

~

The more successful a liar is, the better person he is, and “more power to him”? 

Curious way to look at the situation. 

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, third_eye said:

I have no idea what everybody is going on about an 'agenda'

What I do know is, as far as I am aware, he has never claimed to be rewriting anything, all he did was asked questions. Entertain possibilities. Back in the days before Gobekli he was already entertaining ideas that maybe something like Gobekli may be out there yet to be found, so what ?

Did he say that History has to be rewritten? Perhaps some aspects needs to be reexamined closer with the kind to tools available today that were not available back in the 18th and 19th century, which is what is being done today. I don't know what the big bruha is to be honest, he is an author, he writes, if he is successful all the more power to him. if not, I don't think anyone is going to start burning his books in front of Bookstores across the world. At least I don't believe so~

See, the guy himself actually uses only these older references (when he uses references at all,) because newer ones refute his fantasy past.

I can give you an example. He wrote in Fingerprints of the Gods about the Mayan King Pakal and the depiction of him at the "controls of a spacecraft." He got that from VonDaniken. When VonDaniken wrote about it, the Mayan language was only partially deciphered and not well understood at all. When Hancock parroted the same tale years later, Mayan HAD been translated, and it says right there on the walls of the tomb that Pakal is shown in the Tree of Life on that sarcophagus lid.

Had he stuck with modern research, he would have lost an entire chapter of his book.

In other cases, he failed to consult ANY valid reference, relying instead on previous publications by other moonbat fringers. His Fingerprints of the Gods (again) told of flash-frozen mammoths with tropical plants in their stomachs. Had he even consulted a valid reference on this - and the main one is quite old, he'd have seen that these mammoths all died over a period of thousands of years and not all at once, and that the "tropical plants" were actually Arctic Buttercups. But then he would have lost another chapter.

I'm sure I can think of more examples if you want. Hancock has settled down a little over the years since then, admittedly.

Harte

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I concur that Hancock (and folks like him ) can be good writers. But it's what they write that ultimately matters. In that light, Hancock most certainly has not contributed to our understanding of ancient cultures because his information is so suspect. Why add to his wallet when there are real-world historians who are so much better?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

I concur that Hancock (and folks like him ) can be good writers. But it's what they write that ultimately matters. In that light, Hancock most certainly has not contributed to our understanding of ancient cultures because his information is so suspect. Why add to his wallet when there are real-world historians who are so much better?

...and needier of some cash? This is the problem with history academics. Annoyed that someone else can squeeze a dollar outta a subject that they can’t.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

I concur that Hancock (and folks like him ) can be good writers. But it's what they write that ultimately matters. In that light, Hancock most certainly has not contributed to our understanding of ancient cultures because his information is so suspect. Why add to his wallet when there are real-world historians who are so much better?

I recall a historian said of Lincoln the movie that it wasn't entirely accurate; but, if inspires people to read more of the legitimate history about him that's a good thing. 

Edited by Golden Duck
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

...and needier of some cash? This is the problem with history academics. Annoyed that someone else can squeeze a dollar outta a subject that they can’t.

As usual, you know /nothing/ about the subject you’re blabbering about. Most people feel shame when exposing thriller ignorance. 

If you don’t, you should. 

—Jaylemurph 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

I recall a historian said of Lincoln the movie that it wasn't entirely accurate; but, if inspires people to read more of the legitimate history about him that's a good thing. 

Historical Facts:Hancock::Lincoln:Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter.

Harte

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jaylemurph said:

The more successful a liar is, the better person he is, and “more power to him”? 

Curious way to look at the situation. 

—Jaylemurph 

Better person ? Meh, you sure like to read things to skew it into a little crusade marching to the screech of grinding axes, you want to read it like that, it sure don;t sound at all curious to me. Pardon me if I say leave me out of your personal witch hunts.

~

51 minutes ago, Harte said:

See, the guy himself actually uses only these older references (when he uses references at all,) because newer ones refute his fantasy past.

I can give you an example. He wrote in Fingerprints of the Gods about the Mayan King Pakal and the depiction of him at the "controls of a spacecraft." He got that from VonDaniken. When VonDaniken wrote about it, the Mayan language was only partially deciphered and not well understood at all. When Hancock parroted the same tale years later, Mayan HAD been translated, and it says right there on the walls of the tomb that Pakal is shown in the Tree of Life on that sarcophagus lid.

Had he stuck with modern research, he would have lost an entire chapter of his book.

In other cases, he failed to consult ANY valid reference, relying instead on previous publications by other moonbat fringers. His Fingerprints of the Gods (again) told of flash-frozen mammoths with tropical plants in their stomachs. Had he even consulted a valid reference on this - and the main one is quite old, he'd have seen that these mammoths all died over a period of thousands of years and not all at once, and that the "tropical plants" were actually Arctic Buttercups. But then he would have lost another chapter.

I'm sure I can think of more examples if you want. Hancock has settled down a little over the years since then, admittedly.

Harte

Oh okay ... first published 1995, admittedly the world was an entirely different pre 9/11 world then.

Isn't it a wonderful morning ? Oh what a beautiful day ...

~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Better person ? Meh, you sure like to read things to skew it into a little crusade marching to the screech of grinding axes, you want to read it like that, it sure don;t sound at all curious to me. Pardon me if I say leave me out of your personal witch hunts.

~

Oh okay ... first published 1995, admittedly the world was an entirely different pre 9/11 world then.

Isn't it a wonderful morning ? Oh what a beautiful day ...

~

Yeah, but 9/11 has little to do with what's written on the walls of Pakal's tomb in Palenque.

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Harte said:

Yeah, but 9/11 has little to do with what's written on the walls of Pakal's tomb in Palenque.

Harte

Exactly, Mr Harte ... exactly my point

~

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Captain Risky said:

...and needier of some cash? This is the problem with history academics. Annoyed that someone else can squeeze a dollar outta a subject that they can’t.

LOL yes, Captain, this is why professional historians dislike such characters.

Do you know any academics?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Harte said:

Historical Facts:Hancock::Lincoln:Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Hunter.

Harte

Nice...

But, @third_eye did mention a reference and reading list. I thought he was implying he makes use of that after enjoying Hancock's entertaining ideas.

Heck, I ended up here after seeing Hidalgo; and, it seems Hopkins had a clear agenda, altruistic or not.

I'm not personally familiar Hancock. I got halfway through a Lawrence Gardner before the cliffhanger at the end of each chapter got the better of me. But, he dropped a couple of factoids that were interesting to straighten out. Readers who take these authors at their word seemingly may be the noisiest, but perhaps not necessarily the majority.

I'm sure mathematicians enjoy looking at assertions of 1=2.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Golden Duck said:

I thought he was implying he makes use of that after enjoying Hancock's entertaining ideas.

Just to elaborate, prior to that, I had little to no idea what those sections were for, and thus never fully appreciated them for what they were ...

~

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, kmt_sesh said:

LOL yes, Captain, this is why professional historians dislike such characters.

Do you know any academics?

Sure do... and they’re all a bunch of uptight idiots. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Captain Risky said:

Sure do... and they’re all a bunch of uptight idiots. :)

Okay, so in the real world, you don't know any academics.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kmt_sesh said:

Okay, so in the real world, you don't know any academics.

Actually brother-in law is a medical doctor with degrees in science and a doctorate in maths... even got this award from some Swiss university for some paper he wrote on Maths. theoretically leaves most for dead practically couldn’t organise his life beyond his immediate interests and work. Why do you ask?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Captain Risky said:

Actually brother-in law is a medical doctor with degrees in science and a doctorate in maths... even got this award from some Swiss university for some paper he wrote on Maths. theoretically leaves most for dead practically couldn’t organise his life beyond his immediate interests and work. Why do you ask?

Only because you don't describe them realistically.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kmt_sesh said:

Only because you don't describe them realistically.

I think I do. Well that’s my take. You’re welcome to yours. May I remind you it the academics working on Goblekli tepe that though for twenty years that it was a Byzantine graveyard. Even now with all of science and computer advances they still grudgingly admit to a structure 12,000 years old. Hancock was a d still is ahead of the academics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Captain Risky said:

I think I do. Well that’s my take. You’re welcome to yours. May I remind you it the academics working on Goblekli tepe that though for twenty years that it was a Byzantine graveyard. Even now with all of science and computer advances they still grudgingly admit to a structure 12,000 years old. Hancock was a d still is ahead of the academics.

Really? Do you understand Hancock's general approach? He's not ahead of anyone or anything. He parrots what academia says and inserts his own agenda.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, third_eye said:

Just to elaborate, prior to that, I had little to no idea what those sections were for, and thus never fully appreciated them for what they were ...

~

Well I'd better find an alternative pigeonhole for you!

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Golden Duck said:

Well I'd better find an alternative pigeonhole for you!

He has three eyes. I like kittens but...poke him in the top eye!

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, kmt_sesh said:

Really? Do you understand Hancock's general approach? He's not ahead of anyone or anything. He parrots what academia says and inserts his own agenda.

That’s your take on it. Hancock uses much scientific data to support his theories. He’s not eyeballing it. Let me ask you a question...  before GT was dated if I told you that there was an organised society building in wonderfully carved megaliths, at least semi-farmers,  building  temples 12,000 years ago would academics or yourself believe it? No you wouldn’t. So historical time lines have been shifted. YET GT is still considered an anomaly that’s pretty much been quarantined from historical studies and time lines. Hancock is closer to the truth than the a academics that find it hard to move past what was know 100 years ago.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.