Fingerprints of the Gods - Book Review

[marduk]

It says that the first 200 yrs. are mostly unknown

no it doesn't it says

Tzacualli to Miccaotli phases; A.D. 1-200) were characterized by monumental construction, during which Teotihuacan quickly became the largest and most populous urban center in the New World.

you also need to research the sailing ability of the ancient egyptians like Hanock didn't if you want to make a tenuous connection
they didn't have any ability whatsoever having to hire the phoenecians to take them around the continent that they lived on
on the one occasion that they made a prolongued riverine journey on their own they commemorated the event by painting scenes from it all over Hatsheputs tomb wall
and you are claiming that Hancock's claim of a connection is a reality ?
are you smoking something illegal ?

[Beagle]

[img][img]http://i67.photobucket.com/albums/h298/LL3850/th_teomp2.gif[/img]
[/img]


Click to enlarge.
I'm going out on a pretty long limb here Min. but does anything about this picture look vaguely familiar?

It's from the above url.

[Minimalist]

Marduk, you are acting as if Hancock invented all of this stuff out of thin air. He has compiled research done by others and diligently cites his sources. If your complaint is (and I'm not really sure what it is) that he does not give equal time to orthodox explanations, well....good. Those explanations are readily available elsewhere. The Zahi Hawasses of the world do not need an additional pulpit.

In those cases where he advocates ideas such as Hapgood's Earth Crust Displacement, he deserves to be called on it.

[Minimalist]

I'm going out on a pretty long limb here Min. but does anything about this picture look vaguely familiar?

Um....

Bosnia?

[Beagle]

I wasn't thinking of Bosnia exactly. It may sound just as crazy though.

Notice how two of the pyramids are in a straight line......and one is a little offset to the left.

The largest pyramid is the first and the other two diminish in size.

OK - crazy I know.

[Minimalist]

I wouldn't say 'crazy' but the obvious flaw is that there is such a size discrepancy.

Aside from the offset of the 3'd star the other obvious factor about Orion's belt is that the first two stars appear roughly the same size. YOu don't seem to have that, here.

[Beagle]

Quite true, but leaving the Orions' belt theory out of it, the similarity to the Giza configuration seems an interesting coincidence.

[Minimalist]

Looking at it another way.....I wonder how many times pyramids were grouped in threes?

And why??

[Beagle]

I'm a little disappointed in Hancock in that he makes kind of a big deal about the Mayan calender.

As we approach that date, an entire money making industry will be coming out of the woodwork.

It's actually the Mayan way of saying "it is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius". It's the end of an astrological age (of theirs). But like most people, Hancock intimates that it may be a time of great destruction.

[Minimalist]

Mayan mythology is that the 4 previous suns have ended in catastrophe.

Why not the 5th?

And it seems that the Aztecs were so convinced that the parade of sacrificial victims was designed to stave off the end of the Sun. Honestly, it is no more idiotic than christian end-of-the-world scenarios.

[Essan]

Marduk, you are acting as if Hancock invented all of this stuff out of thin air. He has compiled research done by others and diligently cites his sources.

That's the impression you get initially - I was certainly fooled at first when I read FotG years ago ....

But then you delve a little deeper and discover that he's been very selective with his own research and the sources he quotes. A lot of it is actually very out of date (like Hapgood's ECD theory).

To be persuasive you need to reference the very latest research; you wouldn't write a book on aeronautics using only early 20th century info, would you?


btw just a quick flick back through the pages to the maps Hancock discussed at the start of the book, these are some very informative articles written in response to the idea that they depict an ice free Antarctica:-

Piri Re'is
Fineaus
Buache

[marduk]

Marduk, you are acting as if Hancock invented all of this stuff out of thin air. He has compiled research done by others and diligently cites his sources

minimalist
he has compiled the work of other psuedo authors who didn't do their research properly
he has included details from regional newspapers that talk crap
if you think that is diligent then i suggest you get a new dictionary
his copying of the rubbish about Oannes being a mer man who came from the persian gulf came directly from Sitchin but he cites robert temple's sirius mystery on that one. Robert Temple cites Sitchin

[Beagle]

Hey Min, I know I'm going slow but I'm actually spending more time searching the net for critical reviews whenever Hancock makes what I see as a major point.

There is no shortage of critics. I have to decide if the criticism is valid or not, and some are - and some are completely ridiculous. What is most obvious to me - is when there is a total absence of critique in many things he says.

Trying to keep notes as I go.

[Beagle]

Marduk, you are acting as if Hancock invented all of this stuff out of thin air. He has compiled research done by others and diligently cites his sources.

That's the impression you get initially - I was certainly fooled at first when I read FotG years ago ....

But then you delve a little deeper and discover that he's been very selective with his own research and the sources he quotes. A lot of it is actually very out of date (like Hapgood's ECD theory).

To be persuasive you need to reference the very latest research; you wouldn't write a book on aeronautics using only early 20th century info, would you?


btw just a quick flick back through the pages to the maps Hancock discussed at the start of the book, these are some very informative articles written in response to the idea that they depict an ice free Antarctica:-

Piri Re'is
Fineaus
Buache

Essan - thank you. I have seen them before (recently). I feel like I've read so much that I need a vacation. .

Anyway - you've been quite the gentleman here and I appreciate your contribution. This is my first time to read the book. I started with this book on good advice, but I'm looking forward to hearing Hancocks' ideas about much of mans' history being underwater. I have positive feelings about that. But I think that is in a later book.

[marduk]

underworld with the exception of supernatural is his worst book
don't get your hopes up
he even repeats the same crap that he said earlier about Oannes but this time adds "what berossus has to say, however ridiculous this may sound is surely more suggestive of a man wearing a fish costume"
compare that to FOTG where he said "it seemed that there was an out of place echo with mesopotamian myths, which spoke strangely and at length about amphibious beings endowed with reason who had visited the land of Sumer in remote prehistory."

so he seems to have learned by the time that he got to underworld that Oannes was never an amphibian which begs the question where did he get the erroneous idea that he was in the first place, he cites Robert Temple as his source for the earlier information and Robert Temple cites Sitchin who obviously made it up
He cites stephanie Dalley "myths from mesopotamia as a source for the later information but all she says in her book is
Oannes : greek form of Uan, name of Adapa
Adapa had two legs and was a fisherman and is a very well known character who even has a story written about him making the need for Berossus as a source totally erroneous and considering that the Book written by Berossus dissapeared over 2000 years ago i'd like to know where he got his copy from
http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/adapa.htm
so the tenuous link between the fish deities of mesoamerica and the fish deities of mesopotamia doesn't actually exist
does it