Has anyone read up on this guys theories? I thought it was bullshit

Haven't read any of this guy's stuff but Ancient Civs is definitely the most fascinating "conspiracy" theory out there.

IMO Ancient (relatively) advanced civilizations we don't know about or have a very vague understanding about certainly exist.

I read magicians of the gods by Hancock.

He's got a mix of interesting ideas and a healthy skepticism of academics making assertions with stupidly limited evidence, but his entire shtick is basically filling the big 'we don't really know' gaps with supposition. Very little of his 'groundbreaking' ideas can really be proven, but it's a good read to have a guy take a critical eye to a lot of assumptions about ancient history.

It's a good primer on "Why you shouldn't take people at the word because they're prone to bullshit", but he's subject to the same scrutiny. I'd certainly never quote him in a paper or anything.

>>2803890
He's genuinely interested in the truth of the matter of where we actually came from, and he puts forth many truly compelling arguments.

But overall, what >>2805849 said. He points out the flaws of current historical/archeological """theory""" and the unwillingness to accept that maybe they're wrong. If anything, Graham seems more like a metacritic, but he does raise very, very good points while presenting actual observable evidence.

File: Yonaguni.jpg (121KB, 500x305px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 500x305px

>>2805833
How ancient though?

Hell this underwater pyramid near Japan is supposedly 10000 years old, meaning civilisation is even older than that for it to be constructed.

>>2806759
This would be an example of a civilization we have very vague understanding about. idk if it's 10000 years old but it very well could be. We have some very old megalithic structures in Siberia as well.

>>2805873
Oh, piss off. "Accepted wisdom" in archaeology etc gets overturned all the fucking time when new evidence comes to light. I can think of dozens of examples from the past century, many from the past few decades.

He's not taken seriously because his books are full of bullshit, not because all the stuffy ivory tower liberal academic elitists are too closed-minded to listen.

>>2806810
How is it bullshit?

All he does is raises a few questions that our current ancient history cannot reconcile

>>2806821
Oh, you almost got me, you sneaky little motherfucker.

Don't be too proud of yourself, this guy is my weak point.

>>2806821
>How is it bullshit?
Because all Hancock does is make argue for some really ridiculous conclusions based on zero evidence. The defense that "he's just raising questions" is absolutely wrong; science/archaeology/history/any discipline doesn't work like that. You need to base conclusions and arguments on actual evidence, not just what could have happened based on your imagination and no one being able to prove otherwise. If you don't see a problem with that, do more reading about critical thinking.

Like that other anon said, in archaeology, things are constantly being revised and challenged. Everyone is asking questions. Hancock is bullshit because he just contributes pseudoscience in a very smug way.

>>2806759
That's not a pyramid. It's not even culturally made. The Yonaguni claims were debunked years ago, like the Bimini road and plenty of other natural features people have argued were manmade.

>>2806890
> The Yonaguni claims were debunked years ago

source or fuck off

>>2806810
Like Zahi Hawass?
College professors and academics trying to sell their books are always standing in the way of new information

>>2803890
the sea peoples=atlanteans.

>>2806898
http://www.robertschoch.net/Enigmatic%20Yonaguni%20Underwater%20RMS%20CT.htm
http://www.robertschoch.net/Diving%20For%20Lemuria%20John%20West%20Colette%20Dowell%20CT.htm

>>2806902
No, they're not. Academia runs on people making new arguments and finding new things out. It's the only way to keep a job and get funding. Yes, lots of old-timers will be die-hard about their own hypotheses, but that doesn't stop other work from happening, and if something new comes along with better evidence, it will replace old theories. I mean, there are still people who argue for the Clovis first model in the Americas, but that didn't stop it from falling out of the mainstream in archaeology over twenty years ago. It's all about who has the best evidence and can make the better arguments. Graham Hancock has neither.

>>2803890
This book is basically just describing Ancient Finnic Empire.