Fingerprints of the Gods - Book Review

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 8:35 pm

http://www.stanford.edu/~meehan/donnellyr/summary.html

I'm posting this site because it seems like there will be a lot of discussion about where certain ancient civilizations developed. An argument with folks like Hancock and J.W. West is that these civilizations seemed to have "sprang out of nowhere"

Some archaeologists say "show us the archaeology". Modern humans don't seem to have a good concept of climate change. In fact, the world has been very different in the past, and will be in the future.

--------------------------------------------------

3250 BC: Egypt; Egypt Nile delta

A core (5-44) taken at the south margin of one of the coastal lagoons at the north end of the Nile delta showed a layer of potsherds 25 ft. below sea level dated at 3,500 to 4,500 CYBP. The layer was underlain by 20 ft. of lagoon mud which would have compressed about 3 feet so the corrected depth would be close to 22 ft. below present sea level. Accounting for deep subsidence (6 ft., according to Stanley et al) would place the "buried civilization" at 16 ft. below sea level. Boring 5-7 drilled south of the coastal Lake Manzala, Egypt, about 40 km from today's shoreline shows a layer of delta front sand from 4 to 5 meters below ground surface deposited at about 4,600 BP (interpolated from lower date of 5,720 RCYBP) (Coutellier and Stanley).

To appreciate the article, some links have to be followed. Hancock is asking all the right questions, As always, the argument will be over the answers. So far - very good book.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 8:39 pm

personally i call it fingerpaints of the gods because what isn't entirely fabricated is poorly researched and badly interpreted
But then what did you expect from a journalist who is a self confessed anarchist

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 8:40 pm

And what's wrong with a little anarchy, now and then?

Authority needs to be constantly questioned.....just to keep it honest.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 8:50 pm

Welcome Marduk. Please join in the discussion if you have actually read the book. It's better I think to talk more specifically than to just "trash" it in a broad statement.

Let's be up front though. You belong to a website that has dedicated itself to trashing Hancock. There's nothing wrong with that at all. But if that is your reason for posting here - please let this thread be. Deception isn't cool.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 8:57 pm

You belong to a website that has dedicated itself to trashing Hancock

no i don't
where did you get that idea
trashing psuedoscience would be better
if youre looking for people with an ulterior motive to hide the truth to forward their own agenda then thats it
who's being deceptive
really beagle you're assuming a great deal here
i have read the book
i own the book
i know hancock personally
i know his agenda
and it isn't pretty
its called MONEY

Post by **Minimalist** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:02 pm

That looks like an interesting find, Beags....good work.

I also think I'll need several uninterrupted hours to go through it!

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:05 pm

no i don't
where did you get that idea

That is really not cool. We're not starting off on an honest foot here. I'll be back Gents. I need to go get the proof. (I could really save myself a lot of trouble if I just ignored this shit).

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:14 pm

In the Hall of MaatIn-depth analysis of claims made by alternative history authors, especially Graham Hancock.
www.thehallofmaat.com/maat/index.php - Similar pages

Marduk, if you just google THOM this is the very first site description to come up. And of course you post there.

No problem with that, but we don't care for the deception.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:27 pm

i post at the hall of maat and about 15 other forums
i don't belong to maat and the link you posted says nothing about

trashing Hancock

Maat isn't a site dedicated to trashing hancock, it is an orthodox archaeological forum if you don't like that then thats tough because hancock isn't an orthodox archaeologist, if he wanted to be he would have trained as one which he didn't
forget deception
how about a little common courtesy and intelligence
are you saying because i post at the hall of maat and am frequently villified there that i have less credibility here
whats your agenda Beagle
what kind of a dog are you exactly ?

you want me to prove what i said about Hancock is true

read it for yourself
pay special attention to where he says
"by instinct I'm an anarchist, i don't like Hierarchies and power structures"
obviously he doesn't feel the same about his bank which has both a heirarchy and a power structure because he prints books full of poorly researched rubbish
and before you ask i was banned because i posted the truth about something that Hancock had lied about
he didn't like that
so who's covering up the truth exactly ?

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:40 pm

Let me just say again that I think you will enjoy Archaeologica. Also, please pick another thread for your rants. This is a book review (see the first post here).

I don't care about Hancocks' or anyone else' personal life.

I'll let other members judge what you've said.

Sorry to see that you were suspended from Hancocks' web site.

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 9:43 pm

I had more ground to cover Min. Past my bedtime though. Later.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sat Jul 15, 2006 10:08 pm

Beagle wrote:Let me just say again that I think you will enjoy Archaeologica. Also, please pick another thread for your rants. This is a book review (see the first post here).

I don't care about Hancocks' or anyone else' personal life.

I'll let other members judge what you've said.

Sorry to see that you were suspended from Hancocks' web site.

Ah i see
this is a book review for people who don't care if what they are reading is fiction marketed as truth
or for people who want to hide the fact that what is marketed as truth is fiction ?
its obviously not for people who have actually read it to offer their opinion on its content
i shall have to remember that in future
thanks for the heads up
or should that be thanks for the cover up

why don't you review something worthwhile like "chariots of the gods" at least it was original

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 3:46 pm

Hancock is making a lot of comparisons between mesoamerican culture and the ancient Egyptians. So, discussion wise, I'd like to backtrack a little and talk about Teotihuacan a little.

As far back as 25-30 yrs. ago it was said that nobody knew of the culture that created that city. Hancock says the same thing in this book. I'll look around some for an update.

marduk · Post by **marduk** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 3:58 pm

Teotihuacan was founded around 200bce
Egypt was founded in 3100bce
Hancock says nothing of the time travel that is neccesary to make his speculation possilble
in fact iirc he doesn't mention the dating apart from to claim without any evidence whatsoever that Teotihuacan is older than every expert who's actually been involved in the dating has stated
Psuedoscience sucks when its examined
in fact it falls down at the first hurdle

Beagle · Post by **Beagle** » Sun Jul 16, 2006 4:03 pm

http://archaeology.asu.edu/teo/intro/citymp2.htm

This site seems to give pretty good information Min. It's from the U. of Arizona. It says that the first 200 yrs. are mostly unknown, but check it yourself.