I’ve been following Graham Hancock for over 25 years, ever since I read his first book, “Fingerprints of the Gods”. I find him very credible for mainly two reasons: 1. He’s outside the mainstream academia. He doesn’t follow in lockstep with their well established garbage. He looks at what is presented, and following human nature and ingenuity, asks questions and proposes arguments. He looks at all the connections, where as someone who is only an expert in one field, only looks at the evidence through that lens. 2. He doesn’t fall back on the usual trope, “it was aliens”. He understands that human beings are tricky animals that figure out how to do something because we are tenacious little bastards. Main stream academia has to protect its delicate legacy, that’s why they don’t like Graham.
I’ve been following Graham Hancock for over 25 years, ever since I read his first book, “Fingerprints of the Gods”. I find him very credible for mainly two reasons: 1. He’s outside the mainstream academia. He doesn’t follow in lockstep with their well established garbage. He looks at what is presented, and following human nature and ingenuity, asks questions and proposes arguments. He looks at all the connections, where as someone who is only an expert in one field, only looks at the evidence through that lens. 2. He doesn’t fall back on the usual trope, “it was aliens”. He understands that human beings are tricky animals that figure out how to do something because we are tenacious little bastards. Main stream academia has to protect its delicate legacy, that’s why they don’t like Graham.