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 466 Garrett Fagan 27-Nov-00 22:34
C-14 an academic joke!! 170 William John Meegan 27-Nov-00 23:52
RE: C-14 an academic joke!! 166 Garrett Fagan 28-Nov-00 00:05
RE: C-14 an academic joke!! 165 Garrett Fagan 28-Nov-00 00:11
Be more inventive than that: PLEASE 160 William John Meegan 28-Nov-00 00:55
RE: C-14 an academic joke!! 170 William John Meegan 28-Nov-00 00:50
RE: C-14 an academic joke!! 160 jameske 28-Nov-00 00:23
RE: C-14 an academic joke!! 164 oziris 28-Nov-00 02:10
RE: C-14 an academic joke!! 149 Bryan 28-Nov-00 02:18
RE: C-14 an academic joke!! 172 Brian A 28-Nov-00 14:50
RE: C-14 an academic joke!! 165 Bryan 28-Nov-00 14:58
RE: C-14 an academic joke!! 176 Brian A 28-Nov-00 14:48
To Brian 155 William John Meegan 28-Nov-00 15:35
RE: WJ Meegans sanity 160 CSICOPdivision2 28-Nov-00 16:53
CSICOP is a very rude child: a cry baby 122 William John Meegan 28-Nov-00 17:26
RE: CSICOP is a very rude child: a cry baby 156 Bryan 29-Nov-00 02:19
RE: To Brian 203 Brian A 29-Nov-00 17:41
To Brian: THE KABBALISTIC QUEST 195 William John Meegan 01-Dec-00 01:57
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 202 Graham Hancock 28-Nov-00 02:24
RE: Hancock The Underdog 123 Mark 28-Nov-00 11:42
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 167 Garrett Fagan 28-Nov-00 16:10
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 200 Graham Hancock 28-Nov-00 19:10
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 123 laura 28-Nov-00 21:27
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 132 CSICOP 29-Nov-00 09:29
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 201 Graham Hancock 29-Nov-00 10:37
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 153 Garrett Fagan 29-Nov-00 15:02
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 173 Graham Hancock 29-Nov-00 15:51
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 156 Pilgrim333 28-Nov-00 05:22
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 181 Sky 29-Nov-00 17:24
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 160 Robert G. Bauval 28-Nov-00 07:40
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 152 Christophe Leijnen 28-Nov-00 11:08
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 158 R. Avry Wilson 28-Nov-00 11:55
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 142 Mark 28-Nov-00 12:41
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 162 R. Avry Wilson 28-Nov-00 13:43
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 163 Mark 28-Nov-00 13:49
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 174 Pilgrim333 29-Nov-00 01:12
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 154 Garrett Fagan 29-Nov-00 15:49
RE: Hancock's Challenge: A Response 197 R. Avry Wilson 29-Nov-00 11:18


Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.