Graham Hancock has some interesting and unconventional views of human history. He believes there was an advanced human civilization existed 13,000 year ago and was destroyed in a huge flood caused by the end of the ice age.
By "advanced" he is not claiming they had airplanes any flying saucers, but advanced, like the Egyptians were.
The hatred towards this man and his theories seem to be imbalanced for what he suggests. The MSM and establishment calls his theories "white supremacist" and "nazi" as they take credits away from cultures of "people of color". I'm pretty sure he never suggested any pigmentation or color of earlier civilizations.
The MSM and and archeology routinely claim that he says aliens brought technology to earth, etc, although I'm pretty sure he has not mentioned this.
So why so much animosity towards this? If it is true? So what? If it is false, so what? Is it archeologists who are threatened because they spent 50 years of their life teaching the world was one way, and now learning they may have been wrong?
Or is there some larger threat to the establishment here?
Edit: I'm only a little educated on this individual, so I apologize in advance if any of this is incorrect. Just that my experience is that when a person or idea receives many attacks by the establishment, it usually means they are over target.
Nobody said Hancock never presented anything that wasn't true. What Hancock does is invent timelines and time periods with no basis in reality nor providing the slightest bit of evidence to back them up. Timelines that support the mainstream narrative I might add.
The very definition of "controlled opposition" is that many things presented are indeed true but the well is poisoned with subtle, hard-to-detect lies that become accepted due to the existence of other truthful information in the presentation. And it doesn't help him one bit that he relies on other fraudulent historical information to form his theories.
And lastly I'll add, anybody who can get their work onto Netflix is UNDOUBTEDLY being supported by the establishment cabal. This is beyond obvious, is it not?
What timelines and time periods with no basis in reality or evidence are you referring to? I am not aware of a single instance of this. Some are proposed as "to consider" many are presented based on cosmo-archaeological alignments that are repeatable, some are presented based on geological surveys and review of materials. I am not aware of a single mainstream narrative supported by any timelines hes presented. In fact it should be clear his career has been rife with ridicule because of this.
Again, relies on fraudulent historical information, what exactly is fraudulent? based on what? Alot of accusations, with no context. Is it because some internet influencer "debunked" something in a video or blog? Other than that, again I am unaware of any fraudulent historical information used in any of the information presented.
Netflix. I dont know. It is odd. Ive also seen a trending change of content on Netflix that seems to be "not expected" from a woke company. Without being a executive savy of internal decisions and communications of content allowed, this is all simply speculation.
Would take hours upon hours to discuss this. You can keep listening to the Netflix-endorsed historians or go to listen to Brashears. The choice is yours. He will answer every one of your questions, backed up with mountains of references.
He's the expert historian, not me. I'm just pointing out what to me, and several others who have DM'd me, is the obvious. Hancock is a "limited hangout" "controlled oppo" researcher, whether he realizes it or not.
Cool. However I already ran that track nearly 30 years ago and thousands of books. Im open to any source. Doesnt matter to me the source, ill use my discernment as I always have when taking in information. I responded originally because someone less discerning and reading your comment may take it as presented, matter of fact, rather than disingenious opinion.
Yep, fair enough. No offense taken. I've got a pretty discerning eye for facts vs fictions however, rated just slightly higher than "disingenuous opinion".
I think the big problem with Hancock is that he ACCEPTS AS TRUE far too many mainstream historical books and sources. Brashears points out that this is his biggest mistake as is the case for just about any field of research. You read a book by the top historian in 2022 who adds some of his own research based on "endorsed" books written in 2002, 1992, 1972, 1952, and 1922 for example. And all of those books are based on say a book from 1902 and 1882. And so it goes. All of them referencing each other as "factual sources accepted by mainstream academia".
But Brashears references THOUSANDS of different books far outside the scope of mainstream academia that either pre-date or contradict these academia-endorsed, peer-reviewed sources. He discusses how they differ, what their contradictions are and how he sees certain historical events being whitewashed, dismissed or inappropriately inserted or removed into the accepted timelines. This is invaluable.
Best of all, he tries to harmonize this "hidden history" by cross-referencing sources of different cultures and eras by looking for commonalities in their historical references. Many times he is unable to come to firm and irrefutable conclusions of which he clearly states so and this "lack of absolute certainty" makes him the most truthful historian I have ever found.
If you're regularly visiting GA you should be more than well aware that we have been lied to about virtually everything we can't easily verify for ourselves that gives the ruling cabal an advantage over their servents.
I highly recommend Rudolf Steiner as well for his insights into Lemuria & Atlantis (pre-history completely whitewashed from the mainstream) as well as how the Free Masons shaped the fate of the world during his lifetime (1850-1925), especially how they manipulated European affairs to incite WWI to their wishes. It's some eye-opening material that speaks all that followed his death right up to this very moment in time should you be interested.
My basic stance is this; unless proven otherwise, virtually everything we accept as fact that can't be readily confirmed is a deception on some level, whether half-truth or outright lie. Furthermore, if something "stands as fact" according to mainstream sources, I presume it is a deception at some level --- Without exception.
That might all sound negative-Nancy or depressing to some, but from my standpoint it is incredibly liberating once this is realized. And this is largely because all these lies generate insane and irrational beliefs in the populace that are the fundamental source of all the world's problems.