The Pseudoarchaeology of America Before: A Review

America Before: The Key to Earth’s Lost Civilization

  • Hancock, Graham
  • St. Martin’s Press
  • Released April 23, 2019 (U.S.)
  • 592 pages
  • $29.99
    ISBN: 978-1-250-15373-9

I received Graham Hancock’s new book in the mail from the publisher to review a little under a week ago as I write this review. I reached out to St. Martin’s Press back in February and offered to review it and, although I received a polite response indicating that I’d be considered, I was somewhat surprised to actually receive it just days ago, nearly a week ahead of its official release date in the United States (it’s been available in the UK for weeks now). My surprise was that the publisher either didn’t vet my previous reviews of pseudoarchaeology or that they did and were willing to take a chance anyway.

Having provided the above disclosure, let me say that though I didn’t spend money on the book, I will make an effort not to be swayed by the “gift.”

If you Google the word “pseudoarchaeology” then click the first link, which is probably to Wikipedia, Graham Hancock’s photograph is displayed prominently at the top of that page. If you read this review to its completion, you’ll understand why.

The Book

The book itself is thick. Weighing in at nearly 600 pages, it has 30 chapters broken down into 8 parts. That said, it reads very well. It isn’t dense by any means and, though Hancock references quite a bit if real science, it isn’t overloaded with jargon or technobabble. In fact, Hancock’s writing style is generally very good. I found myself annoyed at some of his writing habits (“the reader will recall…,” etc.) but I wouldn’t expect this to bother most others. For the average reader who isn’t scientifically inclined, Hancock does a better than average job explaining concepts. At least to the extent that he actually understands them.

Hancock begins the book with sections discussing the Serpent Mound in Ohio, the Cerutti Mastodon site in California, ancient DNA (aDNA), and earthworks and dirt in South America. Early on, he begins his love-hate relationship with archaeologists as a theme that continues as an undercurrent or sub-plot to his overall narrative. On one hand, he’s clearly enamored with archaeologists and the work that’s been done that suits his own ideas. On the other, however, he’s clearly upset that archaeologists refuse to let him in the club—to give equal deference to these ideas. If you stick to the end of this review, you’ll understand why.

Brother, can you paradigm?

The overall theme develops slowly. Hancock simmers the pot as he slowly introduces each premise he believes leads up to it. But the sub-theme is right there in our face from chapter to chapter: archaeologists aren’t to be trusted because they are resistant to “new paradigms.”

He’s immediately on the offensive and continues through to the end, accusing archaeologists and archaeology as being an institution that doesn’t want change and will ruin careers to see to it that none of it happens. The dead horse he beats over and over is the Clovis first hypothesis. That there were people prior to Clovis is something he says, “archaeologists have recently been dragged kicking and screaming to accept.” As example, he mentions the work of Jacques Cinq-Mars, who insisted years ago that he was finding pre-Clovis materials at Bluefish Caves in Alaska.

“As a result of such attitudes, funding drained away and Cinq-Mars had to stop his work, only to be proved correct, many years later, by a new scientific study…”

Hancock, p.58

I can’t speak for Cinq-Mars and the extent to which his career was affected by the Clovis-first hypothesis. But, then, neither can Hancock. Archaeologists are people. Some people excel in their jobs; others not so much. The Clovis-first “paradigm” as the fringe are so fond of saying (“paradigm” is a sciencey sounding word) went out of fashion decades ago. Are there still some old-timers clinging to it? Perhaps. But there are some very well-to-do archaeologists who were on the cusp of discovering pre-Clovis back when it was made a part of history.

Clovis point dating to 11500-9000 BCE from Sevier Co., UT. Photo by Picasa.

Here’s how it works: scientists obtain data. That data are analyzed and more data are obtained based on new research questions… and so on. Eventually, a provisional conclusion is arrived at—usually when the data reach some sort of plateau or some overriding reason exists to think the data aren’t likely to change. For the Clovis-first hypothesis (it was always a hypothesis more than a “paradigm”), older sites were just not yet found. And once they started to show up, there was evidence that peopling North America had to occur after 13,000 years ago due to the small window of opportunity provided by an “ice-free corridor” and lowered sea-levels that created a land-bridge across the Bearing Sea.

Archaeologists, rightly demanded strong evidence before accepting a pre-Clovis hypothesis. This, they demanded of themselves. And they met the challenge. All conclusions in archaeology, as with any science, are provisional. They’re waiting sufficient evidence to either support or revise them as conclusions. Sometimes they’re completely scrapped and something very new takes its place. In the case of Clovis-first, some would say the revision is small. The Clovis culture still exists in the archaeological record. Everything that was found of them is still present. But we now know that there existed cultures before this technology came about. Let’s not forget, “Clovis” describes the technology not the societal norms, kinships, and beliefs of the various peoples that made use of it.

The alternative would have been to simply accept a new hypothesis as a provisional conclusion, willy-nilly and without sufficient evidence. Of course, all would have turned out fine. Pre-Clovis is the correct way to think. But such a slippery-slope of letting just any-old hypothesis in as a provisional conclusion just won’t work. If it wasn’t hard to change a provisional conclusion for a new one, where would the line be drawn? At Vikings in Minnesota? At “bigfoot?” The nephilim? The Annunaki? Polka-dotted unicorns that breathe fire and traded corn with China 25,000 years ago?

Chances are, I lost the average fan of Graham Hancock somewhere between “Vikings” and the “unicorns.” But who gets to draw that line. Hancock would like it to include his own idea. Let’s press on to see why it’s a bad one.

Guilt By Association

I won’t spend any time on the Cerutti Mastodon site here. It has its own problems, but one of them is now Graham Hancock. I’ve written on this in the past and may again soon. But I found it interesting that Tom Deméré initially declined to meet with Hancock, then did so with what seemed to be open arms if Hancock’s account is to be believed. It’s interesting because Hancock mentions later in his book that “Egyptologists avoid me” and spends several pages discussing how different factions of the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis were upset that he incorporated each other’s’ material. Apparently a video of Hancock’s was posted to an anti-pseudoscience website and one of the scientists “achieved some unwanted negative-celebrity among his colleagues. He was challenged about the wisdom of hosting [Hancock] and suffered the indignity of wondering about the effect the … video might have on his career and reputation.”

The recent association of Deméré with the pseudoarchaeological television show hosted by Megan Fox and now the pseudoarchaeological notions of Graham Hancock are likely to do little in helping him win over his colleagues.

Chopping Down a Cherry-Picked Tree

Illustration by Chumwa

In the final few sections of the book, Hancock returns to North America where he describes some of the earliest known earthen mounds in North America, such as Watson Brake and Poverty Point. Then he heads up the Mississippi River Valley, ultimately to Ohio and the more recent mounds there. All the while describing alignments, the solstices, lunar cycles, astro-archaeological features, and so on. But this is also where he dives head first into specious comparisons between Native Americans and ancient Egyptians. He readily admits he doesn’t think there were any cross-cultural transmissions of information, and that he accepts the “orthodox” explanation that geographic and temporal separation of these two cultures means that they didn’t have the chance to share information.

But it’s after his section on the global cataclysm that only affected North America that he finally comes clean on what his game truly is. He states several times through the book that he believes that there was a “lost civilization” which was a “third party” responsible for the similarities we see in multiple cultures. An example is the constellation Orion seen as relating to the land of the dead in both Egyptian and Native American cultures. Never mind that the constellation we understand to be Orion today, probably the easiest to spot north of the equator. And that it “travels” east to west, seasonally. Or that, the sun coming up in the east is so easily associated with birth and renewal and, as it sets, associated with death and ancestors. The common element need not be a “lost civilization.” It’s already people. Humans. Homo sapiens. The same common element for all of his other spurious correlations.

By this time, I’ve waded through Hancock’s cherry-picked science. I say “cherry-picked” because he avoids a lot of the parts that don’t work for him. For instance, he likes where Raghavan et al (2015) and Skoglund et al (2015) mention the “Australasian signal” among some of the ancient populations of South America. He likes it a lot. In fact, he mentions is many times after chapter 9 where he introduces it. And even though he provides the quote where Skoglund et al clarify that it was the founding population that was more closely related to indigenous Australians, New Guineans, and Andamen Islanders than to other Native American groups, he still missed the significance. Or at least he didn’t adequately share that significance with his readers.

What the Australasian genetic “signal” really tells us is that we should be on the lookout for populations that were fast-moving or small. There’s also as good a chance that this Population-Y (the Australasian population in question) began in Southeast Asia then moved both north toward Beringia and south into Melanesia and Australia and what we’re seeing is where they ended up. Hancock doesn’t share these bits along with many others. They don’t jive with his shtick.

What’s the Gist of It All?

Overall, America Before is presented as a carefully picked set of genuine scientific notions, mixed with a few pseudoarchaeological ideas (like spurious similarities between Egyptian and Native American cultures) in order to set Hancock up for his final pitch. One that he holds back until he thinks he’s won the lay-reader over. His easy-to read writing style makes the reader comfortable and probably sympathetic to him personally. He carefully poisons the well here and there with “the skeptics will say…” etc.

There is much within America Before that I can actually agree with. And there is much that I could “debunk” in this book if I cared to. I suspect the comments below will give me ample opportunity if the Hancock acolytes and cult following (he truly is a charismatic figure with a following) respond. But the reality is, none of the premises Hancock puts forth, even if every single one were correct, would mean that his conclusion is right. He conveniently provides a conclusion that cannot be tested or evaluated by science since it isn’t within the realm of science.

Here’s his conclusion:

“My speculation, which I will not attempt to prove here or to support with evidence but merely present for consideration, is that the advanced civilization I see evolving in North America during the Ice Age had transcended leverage and mechanical advantage and learned to manipulate matter and energy by deploying powers of consciousness that we have not yet begun to tap.”

In short, Hancock believes this “lost civilization” used telepathy, telekinesis, remote viewing, and healing powers to transmit their legacy to the world.

I wondered throughout the entire book what mechanism he would suggest. I honestly thought it would be the power of oral history, perhaps tied to mnemonic devices (figurines, rock art, landscapes) or religious ritual to ensure fidelity.

I was not expecting ESP.

References:

M. Raghavan, et al (2015). Genomic evidence for the Pleistocene and recent population history of Native Americans. Science, 349, p. 3884.

P. Skoglund, et al (2015). Genetic evidence for two founding populations of the Americas. Nature, 525, pp. 104-108

About Carl Feagans 383 Articles
Professional archaeologist that currently works for the United States Forest Service at the Land Between the Lakes Recreation Area in Kentucky and Tennessee. I'm also a 12-year veteran of the U.S. Army and spent another 10 years doing adventure programming with at-risk teens before earning my master's degree at the University of Texas at Arlington.

25 Comments

  1. Ex Anthropology Major states: “…After reading this entire discussion I have decided to switch my major to electrical engineering. It sounds like they have solved all the mysteries of the universe and know it all about exactly when, where and how it became possible for things like electricity to exist. There has to be some big bucks in that…”.

    I am glad to hear that: when you get your first job you won’t have to worry that in an effort to diagnose and correct an EE problem, you will not be required to submit your recommendations to “peer review” or argue endlessly about it on a blog. You will also be pleased to discover there exist no “pro-alternating current” faction nor an “anti-alternating current” camp. AC is AC and always will be. And finally, and perhaps most profound, you won’t find that AC operates one way Monday and a completely different way Saturday or even 50 years into the future. You will find this latter situation very much to your great advantage. Good luck.

  2. On another note:
    What happened to the hidden chamber (void ) found
    Above the Grand gallery in the GP by Scan Pyramids?
    There seems to be no new info at all.

  3. I wouldn’t put any stock in the talk by the electrical engineers here. Archaeologists are always seeking to better understand the past by working with the material record. Electrical Engineers are always seeking better ways to work with electricity. The majority of engineers have an undergraduate education and work primarily in the practical application of electricity as it is currently understood. They aren’t perfect in doing this. Exposure to more complex issues involving electricity would come in advanced graduate coursework or in other scientific fields. Judging by the posts here the engineers are not really in a position to make the argument that they tried to do, not that it is a decent argument to begin with. In sum, they don’t know what they don’t know. Their use of this silly comparison is to imply that because the state of knowledge in archaeology is always changing that archaeologists are not in a position to judge someone like Hancock. However, the state of knowledge changes within parameters. For example, confirmed sites may move the time-line back for hunters and gatherers living in the western hemisphere but they were still hunters and gatherers. Not really a radical shift in understanding. Being wrong in this sense does not disqualify archaeologists for denouncing work that is wrong by any scientific standard. Modern medicine is frequently wrong, probably more than electrical engineers, but that does not mean that doctors should be discounted when they denounce people who claim that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS. Hancock’s assertions are just as silly. Anyone who makes a serious effort to defend his work should have any comment they make in his defense taken with multiple grains of salt despite their claimed expertise. Fortunately it looks like that is what the majority of visitors here are doing.

  4. Brock states: “…Anyone who makes a serious effort to defend his work should have any comment they make in his defense taken with multiple grains of salt despite their claimed expertise. Fortunately it looks like that is what the majority of visitors here are doing…”.

    Does this standard of “claimed expertise” also apply to you, or just those whom you disagree with? In fact, assuming you are not either an electrical engineer or an archaeologist, why should I take anything you say on either subject serious? You seem like a lot of others here who condemn Graham Hancock, your “standards” are nothing more than double standards…

  5. “…But when Archaeologists excavate the basement where you installed the fuse box will they call it a mortuary temple or a tomb?”..

    Have you seen the book “Motel of the Mysteries”? Funny stuff….

  6. Brock states: “…Their use of this silly comparison is to imply that because the state of knowledge in archaeology is always changing that archaeologists are not in a position to judge someone like Hancock…”.

    I believe that archaeologists are in a position to seriously examine and comment on what Graham Hancock writes; that is, after all, what drew me to this blog. However, because as you freely admit that “archaeology is always changing”, it doesn’t give archaeologist the right to say with any degree of finality that Hancock is wrong; he might be, but a “simple turn of the spade” could change all that rather quickly…

  7. Brock states” “…Modern medicine is frequently wrong, probably more than electrical engineers, but that does not mean that doctors should be discounted when they denounce people who claim that having sex with a virgin will cure AIDS. Hancock’s assertions are just as silly…”.

    Seriously? You honestly believe that is a fair comparison? Sex with a virgin to cure AIDS being equal to a debate over the age of the Sphinx? Wow….

  8. Brock states: “…For example, confirmed sites may move the time-line back for hunters and gatherers living in the western hemisphere but they were still hunters and gatherers. Not really a radical shift in understanding…”.

    Well, it’s a radical shift in the time-line, wouldn’t you say. I believe I read somewhere that in the 19th century, the orthodox opinion was that the Americas had been inhabited for no more than several thousand years (maybe 4000 BC at the earliest?). Then later, with the Clovis discoveries, that date was pushed back to approximately 11,000 BP. Now, that date is being pushed back even further, to dates 0f 12000 BP, 14000 BP, or even 24000 BP. From 4000 to 22000 BP…not a radical change to you? It means the consensus was wrong not by a slim margin, but perhaps by *10,000 + years. That tiny error of, oh , say 10000 years doesn’t erode you confidence, not even just a little, of what archaeologists proclaim? Maybe if the alleged dates came with a disclaimer, or maybe a “caution, could be in error by 10000 or more years”. Imagine a Civil War historian announcing tomorrow that “…we made a HUGE error in dating the Battle of Gettysburg; the date of 1863 is erroneous. We now KNOW the date should be revised backwards to 1563. And oh by the way, anyone who disputes that date is a crank or a charlatan…”. Sorry, but I don’t think archaeology is a science at all: it’s a little better than palm reading, but not by much….

    • Sorry, but I don’t think archaeology is a science at all: it’s a little better than palm reading, but not by much….

      This is the sort of retort I’ve grown accustomed to from those that willingly buy into all sorts of bullshit pseudoarchaeology like the Bosnian pyramid and space-aliens are depicted in rock-art, etc. (not that you’re one of these people). The argument is petty and trite, little more than a tu quoque fallacy, usually proffered when the fringe/woo purveyor (again, not that this is you) is accused of holding a pseudoscientific position. When the argument is fallaciously posited, they nearly always offer a comparison of archaeology with some clearly agreed upon pseudoscience (not that you’d do this).

      It’s clearly fallacious since nearly all the rational arguments that can be made to support the notion that archaeology isn’t scientific would apply also to geology. Admittedly neither archaeology or geology are hard sciences in the way that chemistry or biology are, but they are both conducted using hard science as a tool. This week, for instance, I’ll be using principles of geophysics to prospect the location of a former boarding house that supported an iron furnace community on my Forest. We previously conducted a statistical sampling of the location using shovel-testing methods. The data we recover this week will be compared and contrasted with those results and the probability of the boarding house’s original location might possibly be mapped out. Our next step will be to add in magnetic resonance prospection using a flux gradiometer. Once we have the highest probabilities of the living spaces and outbuildings, we plan to conduct a field school that will excavate a unit. We may come up completely negative in our results with the GPR, Mag-res, and excavation methods, but negative data are still data. This is all leading up to an eventual prospection and identification of an African American/Slave neighborhood of the community that we’d ultimately like to interpret.

      Careful applications of method and theory, then replication is essential to collecting the data that might help in this endeavor.

      If anyone would genuinely dare compare these methods and theory to “palm reading,” he/she would certainly be the least educated among his/her peers and utterly unqualified to proffer opinions of professionals in any field of endeavor more sophisticated than NASCAR.

  9. Carl states: “…This is the sort of retort I’ve grown accustomed to from those that willingly buy into all sorts of bullshit pseudoarchaeology like the Bosnian pyramid and space-aliens are depicted in rock-art, etc. (not that you’re one of these people)…”.

    I can assure you, I am not “one of those people”, depending on exactly what you mean by that (it sounds like you are using a stereotype in an effort to prove your point). I have a BS degree in history from Charleston Southern University, my wife double majored in Sociology and Psychology (from the same school) and has a Masters degree in Early Childhood education from the University of South Carolina. We are both former, state certified teachers. My wife is also about to retire as a teacher from the federal level. I also spent 9 years in the US navy and have been in the radio industry now for about 25 years. I say all of this to try to get across to you that I’m not a dummy, and I didn’t marry a dummy. I also get a lot of odd looks when I tell someone I’m reading Graham Hancock’s latest work; do you not think anyone other than yourself is capable of making a competent decision on what they’re reading? This is one of the problems with some of your posts; everyone is lumped together, with no effort to draw a distinction between someone who is an honest, intelligent seeker, and sadly, someone who believes everything they read. Isn’t it after all possible, that Graham Hancock actually believes what he writes, and is not in fact a charlatan as someone of your friends on here have charged? I also have “grown accustomed to”, as you put it, to charges of being anti-science or pseudo this or pseudo that, merely for reading Hancock’s and other similar works. Is that vitriol in your mind justified?

  10. Carl states: “…The argument is petty and trite, little more than a tu quoque fallacy, usually proffered when the fringe/woo purveyor (again, not that this is you) is accused of holding a pseudoscientific position. When the argument is fallaciously posited, they nearly always offer a comparison of archaeology with some clearly agreed upon pseudoscience (not that you’d do this)…”.

    Here, in this thread, Hancock has been accused of being a drug addict, a charlatan, and making money of the “gullible”: none of that honestly strikes you as “petty and trite”?

    • Here, in this thread, Hancock has been accused of being a drug addict, a charlatan, and making money of the “gullible”: none of that honestly strikes you as “petty and trite”?

      There are decent arguments to be made that can support each of these accusations so, no, not particularly. There really isn’t a good argument to be made that archaeology isn’t scientific.

      I also have “grown accustomed to”, as you put it, to charges of being anti-science or pseudo this or pseudo that, merely for reading Hancock’s and other similar works. Is that vitriol in your mind justified?

      Of course it isn’t. Merely reading the works of mystery-mongers like Hancock, Foerster, or Sitchin shouldn’t result in accusations of being a believer in their conclusions. Believing in their conclusions should.

  11. Carl states: “…It’s clearly fallacious since nearly all the rational arguments that can be made to support the notion that archaeology isn’t scientific would apply also to geology. Admittedly neither archaeology or geology are hard sciences in the way that chemistry or biology are, but they are both conducted using hard science as a tool…”.

    I agree with most of what you said there. Archaeology is a little “softer” than Geology and Chemistry, yes, because of mostly what you’re studying, or working with. My favorite history professor used this definition of history: “…History is the scientific study of fragmentary evidence of past people, events, artifacts and places..”. Would you agree with that? We used the scientific method to the fullest extent that it could be applied; but I wouldn’t call history a “science”, nor would most, including the professor who used that definition. After all, I can study the Battle of Gettysburg using many parts of the scientific method, but there’s a point where it “drops out”, and then eyewitness testimony must be used, the latter of which is terribly difficult to parse scientifically. After all, you don’t believe all of the eyewitness accounts of UFOs, do you?

  12. Carl states: “…This week, for instance, I’ll be using principles of geophysics to prospect the location of a former boarding house that supported an iron furnace community on my Forest. We previously conducted a statistical sampling of the location using shovel-testing methods. The data we recover this week will be compared and contrasted with those results and the probability of the boarding house’s original location might possibly be mapped out. Our next step will be to add in magnetic resonance prospection using a flux gradiometer. Once we have the highest probabilities of the living spaces and outbuildings, we plan to conduct a field school that will excavate a unit. We may come up completely negative in our results with the GPR, Mag-res, and excavation methods, but negative data are still data. This is all leading up to an eventual prospection and identification of an African American/Slave neighborhood of the community that we’d ultimately like to interpret…”.

    Agree with all of that. You’re using science, the scientific method, and scientific devices, all in attempt to get closer to the truth. No rational, reasonable person could disagree with that, certainly no one who ever took a course in science. As I mentioned before, I didn’t major in science, but I took an Intro to Anthropology course at the College of Charleston….

  13. Carl states: “…If anyone would genuinely dare compare these methods and theory to “palm reading,” he/she would certainly be the least educated among his/her peers and utterly unqualified to proffer opinions of professionals in any field of endeavor more sophisticated than NASCAR…”.

    I hereby officially retract the comment about Palm Reading, an obviously “over the top” comment on my part.

    I don’t know Graham Hancock, but I would be surprised if he is purposely lying or trying to mislead people by what he writes; I’ve read all of his stuff, including The Sign and the Seal, and he doesn’t come across as a charlatan. He might be honestly confused, or uneducated in the fields he writes about, which might lead him to make erroneous claims and draw odd conclusions, I could accept that. I’m the only history major where I work, almost everyone else has a technical degree of some kind. Like most work places, when people gather to talk, a lack of a degree in a particular field doesn’t stop someone from having an opinion in that area and history is no different. Naturally enough, I hear some “strange talk” on occasion (in regard to matters of history); but usually it’s not that the person is nefarious, they simply don’t have the background and training to know whet they’re really talking about.

    • I hereby officially retract the comment about Palm Reading, an obviously “over the top” comment on my part.

      This, I’m very glad to read. I’ve been pretty much without internet for the past few days–approving some comments on my phone, but that one caught my eye. I apologize if I was a little defensive.

      With regard to Hancock’s beliefs, I honestly go back and forth with whether or not he truly believes his conclusions. It’s been quite a while since I’ve read his earlier works, but I do seem to get the sense he moves his goalposts as facts make it increasingly difficult to defend them. He likes archaeologists who acknowledge him enough to be interviewed and resents those that are critical. But it’s pretty clear he did well with his books over the past couple of decades. He understands his market and his audience and knows how to leverage both a timely and current product.

      I once wrote a couple of posts that adapted Robert Park’s 7 Warning Signs of pseudoscience and John Casti’s Hallmarks of pseudoscience to archaeology. Perhaps I should compare and contrast these to Hancock or at least this book to see how it holds up.

  14. Carl states: “…There really isn’t a good argument to be made that archaeology isn’t scientific…”.

    I would agree that archaeologists use science, and apply the scientific method, as much as humanly possible given the nature of their work, in the same way I argue that historians do the same, without however making the claim that the study of history is a “science”, as say physics is a science. I don;t recall who said it, perhaps it was Carl Sagan, that “..not all scientific claims carry the same weight, or authority..”. For example, as Sagan said, as a scientist. “..the universe is all there ever was or all there will ever be…”. Science, or philosophy, in your opinion?

    • Science, or philosophy, in your opinion?

      I would say that all science is philosophy. This is how we determine and refine the theoretical underpinnings that allow us to systematically observe the universe around us and use consistent logic to evaluate results or arrive at conclusions. All of which are provisional–a better idea may one day come along. This is true for every single scientific truth: gravity, the speed of light, Boyle’s Law, or Avogadro’s Number. Or the date of a potsherd as determined by thermoluminescence.

  15. Carl states: “…Of course it isn’t. Merely reading the works of mystery-mongers like Hancock, Foerster, or Sitchin shouldn’t result in accusations of being a believer in their conclusions. Believing in their conclusions should…”.

    I’ve honestly never heard of Foerster, but have heard of Sitchin, though I haven’t read anything he’s written. Hancock mentions the latter in Magicians of the Gods but said he dismissed most of what he wrote….

  16. Carl states: “…but I do seem to get the sense he moves his goalposts as facts make it increasingly difficult to defend them…”.

    I do believe he has abandoned the idea of the Lost Civilization being in Antarctica; one reason might be that even it existed there, it’s buried by miles of ice and has quite probably been pulverized. Even if a substantial portion of it was left, getting to it would be impossible, due to the ice and a lack of funds…

  17. It looks like a couple of people are way behind in their reading. Like several decades of Physics Letters and Physical Review to start with.

    Signed,

    Bob Quark and Leonard Preon

  18. The subtitle to hancocks latest offering is “The key to Earth’s lost civilization’, and in the pre-publication blurb, it was promised that Hancock brings his story to a “stunning conclusion”.
    Apart from some vague musings that north America is the place to find this lost civilization, (he has abandoned Antarctica), what is this famous ‘key’ and exactly what is the ‘stunning conclusion’?

Leave a Reply