Ray, today has been a writing day! I will conclude this riveting analysis with Colavito's remarks about Graham.
I strongly agree that Colavito is very hard on Hancock, but I would say that some of his criticisms are fair comment, and indicative of one who understands underlying issues light years better than Shermer and that other guy.
JC Hancock, on the other hand, was eloquent but idiotic, and painfully quick to anger at the least provocation. I was frankly surprised that he couldn’t hold his cool for more than a few minutes at a time.
A funny thing, since both names came up elsewhere on this thread, here's what Jason had to say about Krupp's view of the OCT: "Hancock is still fuming-red angry over criticisms made of the Orion Correlation Theory two decades ago. He spent an inordinate amount of time arguing about Ed Krupp’s (wrong) claim that the Orion correlation is “upside-down,” a mistake that he fought about for years in the 1990s."
JC of Krupp and the OCT: "Wrong."
That said, I will disagree with Jason on Graham's reaction. He had a total right to be pissed. In parts 2 and 3, we just saw two examples of how flagrantly unfair cadres of pseudo skeptics have been to Graham over the last two decades. Rarely do they put themselves in a position to be called out, as Shermer did by appearing live on Rogan. Grahams' reactions were quite inevitable reaction, based on decades of unfair treatment. I have no problem with Hancock's anger. Nor, given the past, should it be the least bit surprising.
Let me say what I liked about Magicians. Graham did some fine research, and he was smart to show that increasing numbers of academics are supporting the general idea that something major happened right around 12,800 BC. The amount of research is impressive, and it seemed clear to me that he had learned that he had best seek to align himself with large numbers of academics, rather than go solo, or relatively solo, as he has done in the past.
But Magicians turned out to be a tale of two subjects for me, and in Hancockian fashion this geology got intertwined with 'alternative' archaeology that points to Graham's Lost Civilization thesis.
Colavito shows good discernment in recognizing this distinction. He said he would have come after Hancock based on the Lost Civilization angle, rather than the geology stuff, I agree that would be the far better course in a debate, because the geology material looked pretty rock solid.
Others may be quick to ridicule, but I found Graham's suggestion that some 'ancients' possibly used the same 'handbag' to be fair comment. It wasn't particularly interesting, nor well developed, but it was straightforward and, reasonable comment because the recurrence of the handbag at least seemed quite improbable, (and when things appear to be non-random, it becomes reasonable to consider other explanations).
More importantly, as I recall - looking back years later - Graham did make clear that this was a possibility at best. That kind of clarity is important to me and so, by the same reasoning, I felt let down around the point Graham made regarding one of the Gobleki Tepi stones showing a Sun, which may pertain to a possible catastrophe that the Mayans may have predicted via the 2012 turning of their Long Count calendar.
The 'problem' I have, is that Graham was making this suggestion based on John Major Jenkins' Galactic Alignment Theory, whereby the Sun during this era will be in the range of the centre of the Milky Way for around 40 years. [Jenkins: "the Galactic Alignment "zone" is 1998 +/- 18 years = 1980 - 2016. This is "era-2012."[alignment2012.com] ]
I believe Graham referenced an expanded time zone, although not by much more than Jenkins, if he did. My problem is that Graham didn't go into any detail regarding how accurate his proposed Mayan Galactic Zone hit was. It had seemed to me that he ought to know that it wasn't a particularly good hit, in fact we would be leaving Jenkins' zone (20160 at the time of Magicians' publication.
I felt Graham failed in this example for the same reason that he had 'succeeded' in the handbag one: for being transparent. It was disappointing. Magicians seemed to fundamentally rely on this Mayan association - as that would legitimize the warning that the Gobleki stones are about something that may be urgent (while furthering the Lost Civilization thesis). I would imagine that a lot of readers would have failed to recognize this, because Graham had touched on it so lightly. To discuss the pros and cons of Graham's idea would have led to less sizzle.
Colavito writes - Hancock disingenuously denies being a “doom and gloom” prophet of destruction, which is silly since he twice made prophecies about the coming end of the world. He waves this away by saying that he is a reporter so he is only reporting the ideas of others.
And I would agree that this doesn't tell the whole picture, Ray. Graham must be more than a reporter. His books must provide something that will sell them, and here we move into the literary-entertainment realm. No longer is it enough to present a book that only involves revolutionary breakthroughs in geology. The publisher needs sizzle. Sometimes the actual content provides that, as with the Orion Correlation Theory. In this case it does not, and a reporter would offer greater disclosure.
Thing is, some will say that this isn't the first time Graham has done this sort of thing, and Colavito isn't alone. I suppose that it may come down to how one views catastrophic subject matter, and personally, I don't feel the least bit threatened by pending comet strikes or asteroid showers, etc. But others feel differently, and so it can be easily argued that one should take care when presenting radical 'alternative' theses, especially when mitigating information is so readily available.
I've grown tired of seeing this sort of thing over the years, which I have come to associate with the likes of Ancient Aliens and Coast to Coast.
So, let us disagree about Jason, Ray. He may not be perfect, but I think he's far better than Krupp, Shermer and what's-his-face. Then again, if you can show some reasons where Colavito is being egregiously unfair to Hancock, I'm open to new ideas. Mark
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 25-May-19 16:29 by Poster Boy.