Thanks for all the replies guys! A real meaty discussion has started on this topic!

I have to disagree with some of the sentiments expressed in this thread. Some people said that he took his ideas from other works, I don't know anything about that. Like I said in the OP, I haven't read any of his books, yet , so I can't comment on the originality of his work.

I think the basic idea he presents is quite convincing, to me at least. Gobekli tepe, the work that Robert Shock and John Anthony West did showing that the Sphinx is much older than the official record says it is, him finding many underwater structures all over the world hundreds of feet below sea level, the many discoveries of evidence for massive cataclysms during the Younger Dryas period etc. All this had me convinced.

Some people here said that he has a "huge ego" , that he's a "know it all" etc. Someone even compared him to David Icke! I strongly disagree with these opinions. He never claims to be an authority on the subject, just someone presenting an alternative view that needs to be studied further. As to the whole ego thing, I again have to disagree. Like I said in the OP, I have watched many of his interviews and lectures, and he always seems to come across as a genuine, sincere, down-to-earth human being. He seems to have that typical British personality, very polite, though he can be a bit sassy when he wants to be lol.

On the whole David Icke thing, I also think that this comparison couldn't be more incorrect. Graham isnot a conspiracy theorist, he says this himself. There's one interview where the interviewer says that Graham is a conspiracy theorist and Graham shuts him down lol https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=d1zFTOlLHcw(from 33:50 to 34:00)

Other people on this thread suggested that anyone who wants to know moar about Graham should watch his interviews with Joe Rogan. I second this wholeheartedly.

Serious academics don't really handle these kinds of alternate histories for two reasons;
1. There is insufficient substance to them.
2. To do so would damage their career.

It would be a mistake to suggest that these two things were unrelated. I believe them to be almost always related.
People cite the case of John Allegro, and how his research effectively ended his career, as an alternate history that was rejected because it did not fit the academic consensus.

However, as the only person I know who has even seen his famous book "The Sacred Mushroom and The Cross", let alone tried to read the thing, I am not surprised that it was ill-received, as it is unreadable. That doesn't mean that I don't have that book cited to me on a frequent basis, of course! It seems like every man-jack has read it cover to cover!
The book about Soma written by R G Wasson and Wendy Doniger follows a similar pattern. I've heard Doniger described as a "dilettante" by fellow academic Sanskritists, maybe that's just envy, but she was smart in that she did not attach herself closely to the theory, but more acted as "Sanskritist for hire", while cashing in on what was largely a book for popular consumption, so often referenced by people who have never even seen it, let alone read it.

So, my two examples here don't necessarily a paradigm make, but they satisfy me that if one is going to engage in controversial theories, you are going to have to back them up with cast-iron primary sources, and even then an escape plan is wise.

GH does not seem to deal in primary sources as such, but then he is not an academic of any kind, and his work should be viewed accordingly.

Personally, I would be wary of subscribing to any theory unless I was at least as well informed on the subject as the person proposing it.

Lastly, ending my slightly directionless ramble on a petty and somewhat snide note; I really had to wince when listening to GH describing in rapturous tones his intrepid "exploration" of the Lascaux caves, and the wonderful atmosphere and presence he felt there, when in fact what he was describing is a visit to the concrete replica that sees (tens of?) thousands of visitors a year.
As I said, fair enough, I respect showmanship, but that is lame and a little bit insulting to the intelligence of his audience.
Must do better, GH!

I've gone trough the second half of that interview.

He both suggests and certainly claims at several points, period.

When it comes to serious research there is no linguistic freedom permitted for exaggerating to make a stronger point ime. For example he is sure that the pyramid Egyptians were extracting dmt from acacia bark and smoking it pipe wise. No one can be sure of that, at best: highly possible.
For many people this might be of no importance at all and they might even love his linguistic muscle play, but for me it is extremely indicative towards the intellectual credibility at hand. My axe cuts populistic from science on such things.

Also it's unfair to claim being a non conspiracy dude while clearly accusing mainstream science carrying out an agenda to manipulate the knowledge available for the people.

.

Finally, a very curious effect appears: as if someone who's not digging history as presented by GH, then it looks like this person does not take serious the comets hitting earth, cataclysms, floods, ancient civilizations, smart Egyptians, buried temples, etc etc.

He says this very clearly in one of the two interviews with Joe and Randall (pretty sure it's in #725). He makes no claims to academia, he does however critique it very heavily. He has received a lot flack since the 90's and "Fingerpints" because the experts basically decided out of hand, without even reading the book, that the two premises Swayambhu put forth were correct. The book itself is loaded with evidence of anomolous relics that don't match the prevailing archeological theories of the time, but since the experts publicly dismissed it, it was relegated to the world of cable tv documentaries and new age book shelves.

Since the 90's, a lot more research has been done. Funny thing about the scientific method, new research has this tendency of overturning previously held dogma, even that put forth by the hand waving experts of 20 years ago. Now the current expertise and the latest research is starting to line up with the hypothesis Graham has been presenting all along: cataclysmic event - nano diamonds in the ice core samples, advanced civilizations older than 9,000 years - Gobekli Tepe. I think Graham is feeling pretty vindicated now, and yeah he is coming off pretty cocky and self-assured at this point. I'll grant him that, after 20 years of derision, let the man gloat a bit.

Does this mean his hypothesis is 100% percent accurate? Absolutely not! Does this mean we should abandon our skepticism and accept him an authority or an academic now? Of course not! What this does mean is that he got us a little closer to the mark, that we should approach his proposal like any rational person versed in research methodology would. Put aside our previous beliefs/understandings, put aside our personal biases about how much of a pompous blowhard Graham himself appears to be, and actually examine his hypothesis and evidence. We need to test it! Challenge it! Invalidate it! Use it as a foundation to build a better hypothesis that gets us even closer to understanding our ancestry.

This is how science is done. This is how dogma is overturned. Ultimately, this is how we learn.

That is a very good way to look at the whole shebang dreamer042, to let the man stand on his soap box and let him sing in his own way. He certainly turned archeology more sexy.

This article tries to sum up the situation around GH:
http://www.telegraph.co....raham-hancock-interview/

I've never read any of his books but his joe rogan podcasts are absolutely fascinating.

SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

I had an idear.

What say the DMT Nexus interviews Graham Hancock....


Nexian #3 anyone?

That's a fabulous idea dreamer042!

i'm so unbelieveably down for this!

+1 from my camp

GH did say he was down for an interview once he finished his book (it's finished). But issue 3 (once it finally is finished some day!) is an Art edition, so maybe his interview would be more suitable for the news site for now and then a later issue.

His best work to me is Supernatural. He's looking at the commonalities of shamanic initiation, tryptamine visions, UFO abductions, cave art, and European fairy lore to look at the possibility of their possible ontological status. I think he speculates a bit beyond his (wonderful)data and makes some claims he can't back up(especially when he goes riffing on Narby's DNA ideas) but it is a good read if you're interested in hyperspace/the spirit world.


His other work is interesting to think about and at least the broad picture (of human complexity being older than our current consensus believes) seems to be true. Definitely many older cultures were way smarter than we give them credit for and seemed to have mapped out the dream time (whatever it actually is)

I haven't read Supernatural unfortunately, but I have watched a fantastic video where he talks about these same topics.

I think that he's right when he says we need to reconsider what we think we know about ancient cultures. The human story is way more complex than the academic mainstream would have us believe. And when you look at ancient cultures and their mythology with an open mind, this picture becomes clear. They tell us their history, in the form of myths and stories and symbology. Yet mainstream academia won't even consider this.

Graham Hancock for the win!! fingerprints of the Gods really opened my eyes to new ideas he comes out here for contact in the desert every year can't wait