One or two years ago, instead of going out for a night on the drink, I decided to settle down in front of my telly and watch a fascinating programme concerning theories on the dates of the sphinx, its alignment with the Leo constallation, its weathering, the linkage of the pyramids with orion's belt.. you all know what I'm talking about.
I found it an utterly involving programme, due obviously to its content. I think Mr Hancock provides some very convincing theories - the weathering on the Sphinx particularly so. Last night, I listened to Talksport - the James Whale show (I have been a long term fan of his anyway) - and I instantly recognised Mr Hancock to the channel 4 programme.
I did not know Mr Hancock was behind the programme, because I had not heard of him until the radio show. Now I know who is behind the captivating theories, and I intend to research his work further. I would appreciate it if someone could tell me where to start.
From reading some of the threads that have gone before, I notice some animosity between CSICOPS and Hancockists (!!!). The radio show was the first time I had heard of CSICOPS (or is it CISCOPS?), and from listening to the Whale show and looking at the threads, I came to the immediate conclusion that CSICOPS feel perhaps a little threatened. It must be very easy for them to dismiss such revolutionary ideas (well they are revolutionary to me, I'm not sure where the foundations of Mr Hancock's work lies, or how far back it goes). If people think they know something so well, for so long, and then have someone come along and shake it all up, it is naturally going to stimulate strong responses. But I think the 'fraud' comment was totally out of order.
My own gut feeling is that Mr Hancock's evidence is utterly spellbinding, and it does encourage me to believe in a lost civilisation. It certainly appeals to the romantic in me - where would be the fun in life without the uncertaincies - surely even the most traditional scientists/archaeologists/historians would agree with that. It would be a little idiotic to discard such interesting work at a glance.
Atlantis is, of course, an obvious talking point. I have heard the theory of Santorini, and another than suggests it lay off the coast of Ireland - can anyone elaborate on these for me? because I am only knowledgeable on the bare bones here.
Sorry for the long post, I hope this to be the first of many. Finally, if anyone heard the Whale show, the crux of the interview was based upon the Horizon show. I have watched this a number of times, and always found it interesting. If Mr Hancock's complaints are to be believed, I find it frightening that mainstream programmes can show such biased views. I realise they have been 'done' for the first time in 35 years, but Mr Hancock mentioned that matters have changed only minutely, to fall in with the television laws. More should be done to make this show a well balanced one, otherwisw what's the point in showing it at all?
I have asked a couple of questions in this post, so I can advance my rather novice-like knowledge in all things related to this site - if you reply, just use my email (firstname.lastname@example.org) rather than going on the posts, as much of it may be going over old ground.
|RE: Newcomer||146||William John Meegan||30-Nov-00 23:32|