Boban1: Just an Interesting video I wanted to share with you...
Many thanks for this Boban; shame that Robert Beauval, Hancock's previous collaborating author on at least 3 books, didn't...couldn't or wouldn't feel the same way. He capitulated all of his principles to have the privileged freedom to publish rather dry and uninteresting books now hiding those truths that he once fought to expose...shame...
solitare: Many thanks for this Boban; shame that Robert Beauval, Hancock's previous collaborating author on at least 3 books, didn't...couldn't or wouldn't feel the same way. He capitulated all of his principles to have the privileged freedom to publish rather dry and uninteresting books now hiding those truths that he once fought to expose...shame...
Or, he realised that the hypotheses belonged to the fantasy world of Von Daniken inter alios.
Boban1: Just an Interesting video I wanted to share with you...
Thank you for the video. Hancock´s research like some other authors is intended to accumulate evidence, pose questions and try some hypotheses. It is, as it happens in other branches of knowledge, a legitimate attempt to burst the bubble of official science and its rigid, boring and scholastic methods that pretend to discard anything that is not born from the method designed by Galileo (this pretention of uniqueness and absoluteness as one of its features inherited from its predecessor: the Christian Church). It would be long just to quote many breakthroughs in current science that have been incepted from the plain curiosity and audacious open-mindedness (which have also been battled fiercely by the corresponding elites of those times). Western science is -apart from honest scholars- a body of elitism, corruption and participation in mass control, and no wonder that anything uncomfortable for its status and dogmatic foundations should be written off. This pretention to write off any other possibility is even more ridiculous in the case of sciences as Archealogy, Anthropology or Economics in which most of its main methods are mere worthless myths with enormous mass manipulative value and minuscule practical value.
I have to say that, Hancock marks a very long distance from Däniken´s petty perspective just tyring to prove his supossitions. The only common thing they have is to present a unorthodox version of human history, something that annoys the arrogant pretentions of the official scholars.
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
If one of the comments is offensive, please report the comment instead (there is a link in each comment to report it).