Hancock, Hapgood and all that bollocks.

L

Laika

Space Bitch
Registered Senior Member
I knew at the time that it wasn't a good idea, but while at my parents' house recently I decided to flick through Graham Hancock's 'Fingerprints of the Gods'. This book had really grabbed my naive young self so I thought I'd give it another look. My God, what a piece of shit! It covers all the predictable stuff from Mayan prophecies of the apocalypse to ancient Indian nuclear wars

Anyway, I thought I'd relate to you the main beef I have with it. That is, Hancock's endorsement of Charles Hapgood's crustal displacement theory. I have real trouble believing that this was ever accepted by any scientifically literate adult, but Hancock maintains that Albert Einstein provided the introduction to the book in which it was outlined. In case you're not aware, the theory suggests that centrifugal forces acting on polar ice (due to the rotation of the Earth) are transmitted to the lithosphere, causing it to slide (as a single, intact piece) over the asthenosphere. The result is that some areas of the Earth's surface find themselves displaced by as much as 40 degrees in latitude. Hancock seems a little vague on the timescale required for this event (anything from instantaneous to 2000 years), but it is, of course, accompanied by earthquakes, volcanoes, electrical storms, plagues, gnashing of teeth and any other historical utterance that he contrives to explain.

In esposing this theory, Hancock requires you to believe that the frictional forces between the rockhead and the ice (necessarily a limited geographical area) are greater than those that exist between the lithosphere and the asthenosphere OVER THE ENTIRE SURFACE OF THE EARTH! Even if this was the case, it neglects such details as subducting plates and the deep roots of mountain ranges and continental cratons. These protrude into the mantle and would (presumably) act as pretty effective brakes to crustal movement. Hot-spot volcanism tracks are also neglected.

I apologise for the overly long post, but I've ranted on this subject until the eyes of my girlfriend and parents glaze over. Therefore I thought I'd try to burn out my fury on this forum. It hasn't worked yet, so please rant back to me.
 
That's odd . . . I read something about that (or similar to that) recently on the Internet. I'll try to remember where it was, so I can give a link.

Sorry this wasn't a rant. I don't know much about the subject to be able to give my thoughts on it. It's über-idiotic, I know that much.
 
The crustal displacement model is suggests that the lithosphere shifted as a whole and Hancock uses this to hypothesize that megafauna like mammoths were killed off by the cataclysm that ensued.

But Hancock is, apparently, full of it.

I remember reading somewhere that there is no paleomagnetic evidence to support the notion. The crustal displacement hypothesis was tested and it failed to meet the criteria to be considered a "theory." But science never stopped Hancock. He prefers to sound scientific rather than be scientific. Pseudoscience at its worst, that's Hancock.
 
Fuckin' A! Keep it coming please.

He does go a little into palaeomagnetism - he claims that a polarity reversal occurred about 12,500 BC. I know that one is thought to have occurred 30,000 years ago at most, but I don't know if his date is bullshit.
 
Regardless, he posits an actual reversal as supporting evidence, while elsewhere in the book he says that the crust shifted just(!) 30 degrees or so, so I don't know what he's thinking.
 
It's also interesting how Hancock believed in 1995 that Hapgood's Maps of the Ancient Sea Kings (1966) is the "best evidence" for the age of Antarctic ice, never mind the 20 years of exploration and research conducted between Hapgood and Hancock. Moreover, Hapgood's Piri Reis Map and the alleged coastline of Antarctica that it represented. The map was allegedly drawn by Admiral Piri Reis in the 16th century and Hancock appears to like this map because it pre-dates the discovery of the Antarctic continent by several hundred years, adding to his whole appeal to the ancients theme.

This map was long discredited in the book by G.C. McIntosh, The Piri Reis Map of 1513http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0820321575/qid=982640862/105-4084760-6759934. In it, McIntosh gave a legitimate critique of Hapgood's methodology in reproducing the map from the original source maps. He also points out the fallacy of assuming (by Hapgood and Hancock) that the sub-glacial topography of the continent was the same as it is now, buried under many tons of ice. The isostatic rebound, should all the ice disappear, would raise the continent as much as 950 meters in the interior. The coastline would be significantly different.

For a good critique of Hancock and Hapgood, as they were presented on The Mysterious Origins of Man, visit this site: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mom/atlantis.html

The main theme of Hancock in FOTG is that he re-dates civilizations such as Tiwanaku (Tiahuanaco) from the currently acceptable range of around 400 BCE to a pseudoscientific date of 15,000 to 10,000 BCE! He does this with little or absolutely no scientific data!

But his overall thesis, the one that carries over into all of his work (FOTG, Underworld, etc.) is that there was once a global civilization that was a technologically advanced, seafaring culture that was destroyed by global cataclysm some 13,000 years ago. He suggests this without offering any appropriate evidence, but the casual reader, one not educated in science and the scientific method, is easily duped by his pseuodoscientific presentation of some very spurious and out-of-context facts.

Graham Hancock is a nutter. Whenever you see his books shelved in the History, Archaeology, or Anthropology sections in book stores, be sure to move them to the paranormal/ufo section.
 
Graham Hancock is a nutter. Whenever you see his books shelved in the History, Archaeology, or Anthropology sections in book stores, be sure to move them to the paranormal/ufo section.
Click to expand...

Hear hear! Good post SkinWalker. Thank you.
 
We could say, as most did, that Velikovsky spoke bollocks. Yet he was quite possibly correct in his interpretation of global events of catastrophic proportions preserved in myth and legend. Hancock has identified a similar patina of possibilities on the polished surface of conventional history. Whether he has misinterpreted or exploited these is beside the point. In this instance we should shoot the messenger, but let us not ignore the messsage.
 
I've got to disagree with that. I think Hancock's set of possibilities are not only misidentified but irresponsible. He legitimizes the practice of disregarding the works of true scholars in favor of those bodies of work, regardless of how discredited or disproved they are, that support his research design.

This is the ultimate in confirmation bias and Hancock is an utter quack. Perhaps not as quacky as Velikovsky, but damn close. The problem with Hancock is that his nonsense is marketed as history and his books are stocked in the history and anthropology sections of major bookstores like Barnes & Noble and Borders. I've actually written several letters of complaint to both stores and complained to the managment in the store. I move myself when I see them.
 
Ophiolite, what was Velikovsky's interpretation? I'm not familiar with his work, but was under the impression that it involved Venus being ejected from Jupiter one day in the not-too-distant past, and making several swings through the inner solar system before settling into its current orbit.

I am also unaware of a message worth saving in Graham Hancock's work. What is it that you think he might have misrepresented?
 
Velikovsky published work in the early 50's that if you condense it amounts to this:
past civilisations have suffered catastrophes; memories of these catastrophes are preserved in myths and early religious work; some of these catastrophes may have been global in extent; further, they may have been associated with the close passage or impact of heavenly bodies.
For me those are the important elements. Seeking to explain the possible connections he believed he had established he then made rather too large a leap. (Venus as a giant comet..)
Th reaction of parts of the scientific community was disgraceful. They rejected the entire thesis on the basis of the conclusions. They did not attack it with science, which would have delighted Velikovsky, but by character assassination and intimidation of his publishers. Velikovsky was wrong, but his research was scholarly, and he deserved better than he got. He also highlighted the interesting possibilities I've outlined in my opening sentence.
Hancock is another matter. I find his writing entertaining and he points in some directions I think worth looking in, but to address this properly would take more time than I have right now.
Let me just ask Skinwalker this: which is worse - Hancock who pursues a living using his imagination, or a 'proper' scientist who churns out a plethora of research papers that add very little to the sum of human knowledge and who wouldn't know a good idea if it jumped up and bit his nose off? And there are enough of those out there, all the more dangerous because they are inside the system.

Edit: I have to add this: Wegner was denounced as a quack and 'run out of town' for proposing Continental Drift. I think 'quack' is best reserved for those without any substance to their arguments: Velikovsky definitely, and Hancock possibly, deserve that consideration
 
Last edited:
I wouldn't mind Hancock so much if he didn't attempt to market his work as history or even factual. I'm assuming you haven't read any of his work, if you do get the chance, the audacity will astound you. I remember thinking (even saying aloud), "this guy is nuts!"

I think, given the choices, I'd have to choose the the "proper" scientist over Hancock. The former is more preferable because he doesn't create a following that will believe in his work to the extent that they will doubt the solid work of legitimate archaeologists, geologists, historians, etc. I would have to doubt that there are many "proper" scientists that publish a "plethora" of research papers that don't add to the sum of human knowledge... did you have someone in mind as an example?

With regard to Velikovsky, it's been a while since I read it (I was a teenager then, I think), but I believe Carl Sagan's critique of Velikovsky in Broca's Brain was with regard to the science of his claims, and not character assassination.
 
I've read several of Hancocks books. (I travel a lot - its ideal reading material in airport lounges and jet lag saturated hotel rooms.) Perhaps I look beyond his claims to the data he has used to justify them. The data is often intriguing.
I also haven't read V. since a teenager: but that's a larger gap for me than you. Before I read any of his work I had stumbled across an excellent analysis of the reaction of the science community: the author of this work was critical of V's conclusions, but not his methods, and was disparaging of the lynch mob mentality that swept through the halls of academia.

I had no one person in mind with my remark about 'plethora of paper pubications', but base it on recollection of my time as an undergraduate, and more potenty unsolicited comments from a wide range of academics stumbled across at social gatherings over the years.
 
As I said, I can't comment on Velikovsky, and I've only read that single book of Hancock's (apart from serialisations of his even wilder stuff in the newspaper (a rubbish newspaper)). What I have read is infuriating on the basis not only of his conclusions, but of his methods too. No anecdote or quote (often taken out of context, I'm sure) is too insignificant to include if he can squeeze a small bit of support out of it. As evidence of the crustal displacement theory he included a paragraph describing the suddenness of the Kobe earthquake about a decade ago. I believe he called it "exhibit 14" or something. Meanwhile, anything which might disprove this theory is totally disregarded.

It's this crustal displacement thing which I'm most amazed at though. Was it ever taken seriously?
 
It was taken seriously as I recall reading somewhere (it eludes me for now), prior to the discovery of the mechanisms of plate tectonics -or, more accurately, after this discovery was tested and verified, as it met with skepticism among the scientific community.

Hancock even quotes Einstein's acceptance of the idea (as an appeal to authority), but Einstein's comments pre-dated the current model of plate tectonics.

Crustal displacement was a good hypothesis for its time, but it didn't hold up to scrutiny, failed tests applied to it, and the current model of plate tectonics that includes continental drift in relation to the asthenosphere meets these criteria.
 
I seem to recall that Asimov in writing about the nonsense within Velikovsky, did mention that elements within the scientific establishment made a "wrong-headed attempt to suppress " the work.

I can see how revolutionary it might have seemed in 1950 that the catastrophes of myth were based upon some reality, and if Velikovsky was as diligent a book scholar as Ophiolite says he no doubt had considerable documentary material from which to work. Evidently where Velikowsky went wrong was to extend his speculations into areas which he actually knew absolutely nothing about - astronomy, cosmology .... geology, palaeontology .... botany and biology - there is scarcely an area in the scientific realm which he left untouched by his speculation, but he very clearly had no scientific background whatsoever, even at a basic level. And this fatally undermined his thesis, since he attempted to create "scientific" explanations for miraculous events in the Bible, some of which could be explained scientifically but not by anything Velikowsky said, and some of which simply could not have happened at all (such as Venus being emitted as a "comet" out of Jupiter, or any kind of orbital mechanics causing the Earth to stop rotating).

Ophiolite said:
Wegner was denounced as a quack and 'run out of town' for proposing Continental Drift. I think 'quack' is best reserved for those without any substance to their arguments: Velikovsky definitely, and Hancock possibly, deserve that consideration
Click to expand...
It sounds like you say there is no substance to Velikowsky and Hancock's arguments, which I don't think is your intended sense. To give Velikowsky that consideration, I think he would still have done better to have consulted with actual scientists before putting his theories into print. Hancock does not have even Velikowsky's credibility since he misuses science in order to prove mad theories, and the madder the theory the more his books sell, which is why he does it. I would give Hancock no consideration at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top