Fingerprints of the Gods

M

machiaventa

Registered Senior Member
Dear Members:

Have any of you read :Fngerprints of the Gods" by Graham Hancock? I found this to be a most enlightlening book.It poses several points of view about our past, which we seem to have amnesia concerning this matter.

The most intriging thing was a map made before the Anartic was even discovered. The best part is the map gives the exact detail of Anartica when no ice covered it. Please read it, you will not be dissappointed.

Machiaventa:shrug:

P.S. The map is over 1100 years old
 
Read it.
Along with a few others of his.
Half-baked "scholarship" and speculation on top of outright fabrication.
 
Why the sacasim

Dear Sir:
When I read yor post I give them thought and introspection. Are you such and ass that you must add your unmitigted bulshitt all the time?

Machiaventa:(
 
Last edited:
Why the sacasim

Dear Sir:
WhenI read yor post I give them thought and intrspection. Are you such and ass that you must add your unmitigted bulshitt sll the time?

Machiaventa:(
 
Ooh starting with the insults already?
Okay: you had the sense to post in Pseudoscience but you apparently don't have the brains to recognise when some isn't using sarcasm.
My statement, oh sorry, my unmitigtd (sic) bulshitt(sic), was not intended as sarcasm.
I have read several of his books and one of the first things I do (but apparently not gullible people such as you appear to be) is check the facts as far as possible.

For example:
http://xoomer.alice.it/dicuoghi/Piri_Reis/PiriReis_eng.htm

The map, such as it is, is NOT 1100 years old (unless we've somehow jumped forward to the 27th century), nor does it portray Antarctica.
If you read anything other than woo woo books for the weak of thinking you would know that Hancock has a poor reputation among reliable historians, and you would also know why.
Since reliable scientists back up their assertions with data that anyone can check.

Please think next time before putting finger to keyboard, especially when replying to *sarcastic* posts full of *unmitigted bulshitt*.
 
Last edited:
27th Century?

DEAR MISCREANT:
What century it is only depends on when you stated counting. Being a Jew,thats puts us in our early 50th century. The map I speak of was recopied in the 11th centurty B.C.E. The copy was made from a much earlier copy which was made from an original which sits in the library in Oxford England, which I have seen and touched with my own eyes and gloved hands. I suggest you study some more before you discount a map accurate to every detail of Anartica before is was covered by ice. Sattelite infared imagery has verified this many times over.

"Pride goeth before the fall"

Machiaventa:cool::rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
machiaventa said:
DEAR MISCREANT:
What century it is only depends on when you stated counting.
Click to expand...
Unless we're using a default setting, say the internet time and date on our screens.

The map I speak of
Click to expand...
My apologies, I thought you were talking about the map Hancock mentioned in his book...
Please try to remain consistent.

I suggest you study some more before you discount a map accurate to every detail of Anartica before is was covered by ice.
Click to expand...
According to anyone OTHER than Hancock?
Study more?
I have, unfortunately for you.
I first came across this specious rubbish nearly 40 years ago, it's not a five minute (or maybe one book) thing.

Sattelite infared imagery has verified this many times over.
Click to expand...
I sincerely doubt that, unless they these "many" surveys showed different imagery from those posted all over the net.
Oh wait, maybe Antarctica changes shape depending upon who is looking at it.:rolleyes:

"Pride goeth before the fall"
Click to expand...
To be specific: pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
But you can't expect woo woos to be precise can you?
 
Oli is correct. The book is half-baked scholarship and rife with speculation.

But if you'd care to, take the most compelling bit of Hancock's speculations and present the summary here. I'll be glad to point out why this is half-baked scholarship.
 
The map is interesting though. It shows that Anarctica once had land, and ships where there very frequently. It is now believed, that the map was made by a historian over 1000 years ago as a joke, or with incomplete information.
 
But the map is NOT of Antarctica, that's merely Hancock's claim.
The link I gave above goes a long to explaining what the map actually shows.
And Antarctica STILL has land, it's just under the ice...
 
I wasn't aware it wasn't considered to be Antarctica, due to it's specific shape. What's it supposed to be a map of then?
 
Run that past me again.
Hancock claims it's ANtarctica.
The shape is wrong (but he conveniently ignores that).
The satellite imagery (claimed to match) negates it.
When you say "supposed to be", supposed by whom?
Have you read the link?
 
I just assumed, that no right person in their mind would claim it was Antarctica, without evidence it fitted the shape. That's all.
 
The crux of the problem: is Hancock in his right mind?
People see what they want to see.
If it's close* they ignore the anomalies.

* for any given value of "close".
 
Last edited:
It poses several points of view about our past
Click to expand...

That's right , his point of view about such matters but based on his assumptions and beliefs not on hard evidence or concrete facts.
 
Oh that I could share in such a madness!
Damn, there ain't no justice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top