Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

pmMeAllofIt t1_j51y5s9 wrote

Reply to comment by z57 in Ancient humans and their early depictions of the universe: “It is no exaggeration to say that astronomy has existed as an exact science for more than five millennia,” writes the late science historian John North. by clayt6

That's just a theoryfrom Hancock and his ilk , even your own article says as much.
However, those claims of Gobekli Tepe's connection to the night sky have been largely rejected by the main team actual excavating the temple.

7

lunex t1_j529fom wrote

Have you heard the theory going around that Graham Hancock is actually much much older than he claims to be? Some are saying he’s maybe as much as 13,000 years old and an immortal descendent of the same pre-Ice Age civilization he talks about on his show. Ever since this theory surfaced Hancock has been running scared, and has refused to take a simple blood test which would prove his DNA is ancient. And yet he won’t. You have to wonder, why is that? Do your own research and connect the dots. Could Graham Hancock really be suppressing his own lost pre-historic origins? Ancient Hancock Theorists say: yes!

28

RodgerRodgy t1_j52g06u wrote

This is my new Graham Hancock headcanon.

6

lunex t1_j52h96u wrote

It just makes too much sense, right?

2

z57 t1_j529sq5 wrote

You're right. Of course, an ancient people who at least had a sophisticated enough understanding of technology, to make carvings in stone, and raise multi thousand pound pieces of rock into the air, did not use stars whatsoever to align said pieces of rock with the stars. The same stars, planets and nebulas that shone above their heads for about half the hours of day.

Hancocks theories regarding what the carvings mean is a completely different point of my original post.

Humanity has been using the stars for at least 12 millennia. Göbekli and the other Tepe sites in the area have barely been explored and excavated. More and more evidence will support humankind, having been technologically sophisticated much longer than main stream academics generally realize.

Just do some basic research and you'll see many sites in the area only just beginning exploration digging

6

[deleted] t1_j53wdg1 wrote

[deleted]

−1

z57 t1_j53yv4i wrote

By reference the internet I mean read papers from the teams doing research on the Tepe sites.

It's really not much different than the very thought provoking but ultimately fanciful dismantling of Mercury, first proposed by Bradbury and now ostensibly emboldened by some maths and the think-tank FHI. Im really not here to defend Hancock, but he has presented some compelling ideas that rubs the mainstream academic community sore, as many newer ideas do, especially when it goes against the narrative. People call them idiots or pseudoscience pushers, until they give the idea a fair subjective chance.

1

[deleted] t1_j5426yu wrote

[deleted]

1

z57 t1_j5438aw wrote

I would agree with you.

And one has to take a look at who they're communicating with in order to have an quicker understanding of where they're coming from. If your feathers get ruffled by people reading through what you post that's on you.

I liked and enjoyed your post, btw.

1

[deleted] t1_j543usi wrote

[deleted]

1

z57 t1_j544z0h wrote

No worries. Yeah it's thought provoking. Reminded me of some hard sci-fi from Neal Stephenson, Kim Stanley Robinson, Dan Simmons, Vernor Vinge. Etc. in a good way. Those authors generally are harder(ish) sci-fi and kinda try to stay in the rhelm of scientifically, accurate/plausible story lines.

I personally try to assume positive intent. Though reading up on someone helps me understand where they're coming from, when I too don't have voice or face to reference.

1

Rdtadmscksdnkydk t1_j54zi9x wrote

The "wow muh post history?!" Is such a weird thing to bring to me. It takes 2 clicks to get to your post history, and it's just as easy to read as your comment here.

Its very much an intended feature of this website.

1

[deleted] t1_j540bqa wrote

[deleted]

−1

z57 t1_j5423ta wrote

Agreed. I didn't originally bring up Hancock, another commenter did. My opinion the ton of that comment was to conflate Hancock with the Tepe sites, and discredit humanity having understood the stars far longer than has been generally accepted. There are many mainstream academics doing real research on Tepe. I having done a decent amount of reading of their work (by no means all of it); it does seem that some of the pillars were purposefully arranged to alight with astrological dates.

That really was my point. Humanity has been using astronomy as an exact science for about 12k years. And obviously it's controversial statement.

Also, lastly. Yes, I would agree with you to leave academic process to the academics most of the time. Recently I am sure you're aware of the extremely large glowing gas arc discovery by amateur astronomers. The cloud is about 3x larger than the moon, from our perspective, in the night sky. Totally missed by the actual academics.

https://skyandtelescope.org/astronomy-news/amateur-astronomers-find-glowing-gas-arc-near-andromeda/

1

thita3 t1_j52sxgj wrote

Them putting up that massive shade sail was a way to stop people from looking up and trying to make connections. They want us to think these were made by hunter gatherers and the animals carvings are nothing but that

0

pmMeAllofIt t1_j52v3jo wrote

So now the government is hiding the site by building a structure and visitor center? Gotcha. Okay Eddie Bravo

4

z57 t1_j525r51 wrote

His ilk. Says much about your dogmatic views.

−1

CanterburyTerrier t1_j52vcr1 wrote

Ilk is the proper word. Hancock doesn't need to be mentioned in order to discuss the Tepes of Turkey.

6

Tentsni t1_j52a6p3 wrote

You believe what he says?

4

z57 t1_j52bf38 wrote

Absolutely not all of it. For example, nothing of the interpretation of whatever pillar # that gets much attention (I think 42).

There's a few other things here or there that are compelling. But in general much of it is unsubstantiated, subjective, personal opinion he espouses with a very authoritative narrative sounding perspective.

Hancock aside the sophistication of the Tepe sites are very impressive and about 2x older than Egypt or Stonehenge

−1

mcmalloy t1_j52ci8v wrote

So what is the explanation? To me they clearly look like constellations and their relative placements are pretty accurate.

It’s just as valid of an interpretation of the relief as any other idea

−1