Mysteries :  The Official GrahamHancock.com forums
For serious discussion of the controversies, approaches and enigmas surrounding the origins and development of the human species and of human civilization. (NB: for more ‘out there’ posts we point you in the direction of the ‘Paranormal & Supernatural’ Message Board). 
Welcome! Log InRegister
Once the idea that the earth revolved around the sun was not only ridiculed, but considered ridiculous by most and even heresy to some. In fairness, it contradicted some very firmly held beliefs of the time. The kicker is the geocentric idea was not so bad in comparison to prior belief systems, better to see Mars as a planet than a god. The geocentric view was based on some pretty sophisticated reasoning, again compared to what was present prior. In light of today’s knowledge, it was of course wrong though not completely (the moon after all is part of a geocentric system).

I again submit that we are dealing with things we don’t understand here, mysteries we can not fully explain. I do try to live by Ockham’s razor and the null hypothesis, and must concede the world is probably not full of things such as sophisticated 12,000 year old human civilizations. But still, there are mysteries. It is of course a matter of interpretation, but what are those weathering marks on the Sphinx? Perhaps they are combinations of ground water, wind and sand, but…there is some reasonable chance that it was centuries of rain when the climate was much wetter. Mind you still slim, but Ockham only speaks to not assuming the existence of more things than are logically necessary. When it comes to my example of the Sphinx, I struggle with deciding what evidence is logical and necessary. In the social sciences, we are happy if we can be at 1% certainty in rejecting that something is not due to chance. Okay, I find the odds of 12,000 year old fully developed Atlantian civilizations extremely remote. But there are other mysteries such as the Sphinx, or perhaps something more mundane such as agriculture existing prior to 9,000 BC or so (ironically it is C-14 dating that dates this).

I may not agree with all the conclusions Mr. Hancock makes, but neither do I agree with all I read in the Tao. I would hope that anyone that reads books such as Fingerprints will similarly make their own conclusions. I also appreciate the universe includes mysteries, and believe that in an infinite universe anything is possible. So a series of digs at an archeological site is still a random sample. No matter how representative, you could be digging 5 feet away from the next Rosetta stone. In the majority of cases, I accept the empirical evidence, assume appropriate error, and drive on. The mysteries here are perhaps more than just random error and mean one should perhaps keep digging, which is what Mr. Hancock is doing.

Options: ReplyQuote


Subject Views Written By Posted
Hancock's Challenge: A Response 486 Garrett Fagan 27-Nov-00 22:34
C-14 an academic joke!! 173 William John Meegan 27-Nov-00 23:52
RE: C-14 an academic joke!! 173 Garrett Fagan 28-Nov-00 00:05
RE: C-14 an academic joke!! 172 Garrett Fagan 28-Nov-00 00:11
Be more inventive than that: PLEASE 166 William John Meegan 28-Nov-00 00:55
RE: C-14 an academic joke!! 174 William John Meegan 28-Nov-00 00:50
RE: C-14 an academic joke!! 166 jameske 28-Nov-00 00:23
RE: C-14 an academic joke!! 174 oziris 28-Nov-00 02:10
RE: C-14 an academic joke!! 154 Bryan 28-Nov-00 02:18
RE: C-14 an academic joke!! 177 Brian A 28-Nov-00 14:50
RE: C-14 an academic joke!! 168 Bryan 28-Nov-00 14:58
RE: C-14 an academic joke!! 182 Brian A 28-Nov-00 14:48
To Brian 159 William John Meegan 28-Nov-00 15:35
RE: WJ Meegans sanity 164 CSICOPdivision2 28-Nov-00 16:53
CSICOP is a very rude child: a cry baby 127 William John Meegan 28-Nov-00 17:26
RE: CSICOP is a very rude child: a cry baby 159 Bryan 29-Nov-00 02:19
RE: To Brian 206 Brian A 29-Nov-00 17:41
To Brian: THE KABBALISTIC QUEST 201 William John Meegan 01-Dec-00 01:57
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 208 Graham Hancock 28-Nov-00 02:24
RE: Hancock The Underdog 133 Mark 28-Nov-00 11:42
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 171 Garrett Fagan 28-Nov-00 16:10
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 211 Graham Hancock 28-Nov-00 19:10
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 129 laura 28-Nov-00 21:27
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 141 CSICOP 29-Nov-00 09:29
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 214 Graham Hancock 29-Nov-00 10:37
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 159 Garrett Fagan 29-Nov-00 15:02
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 181 Graham Hancock 29-Nov-00 15:51
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 162 Pilgrim333 28-Nov-00 05:22
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 191 Sky 29-Nov-00 17:24
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 165 Robert G. Bauval 28-Nov-00 07:40
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 156 Christophe Leijnen 28-Nov-00 11:08
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 162 R. Avry Wilson 28-Nov-00 11:55
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 145 Mark 28-Nov-00 12:41
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 167 R. Avry Wilson 28-Nov-00 13:43
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 166 Mark 28-Nov-00 13:49
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 178 Pilgrim333 29-Nov-00 01:12
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 156 Garrett Fagan 29-Nov-00 15:49
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 208 R. Avry Wilson 29-Nov-00 11:18


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.