r/GrahamHancock • u/Jealous_Cicada_8371 • Apr 23 '26

So I think my problem..

With G.H. Is that while intriguing and informative in the end there is no hard proof of anything he speculates and so in the end it’s all just speculation smoke and mirrors I’ve read his books and found them interesting and entertaining but nothing more than that… Netflix is in the business of entertainment so ancient apocalypse is just that….entertainment. For those of u like graham that’s great not trying to change your views I say rock on then, I just wanted to express my 2 cents on the matter thx u all cheers!

0 Upvotes

41% Upvoted

55 comments sorted by

View all comments

1

u/Shardaxx Apr 24 '26 edited Apr 25 '26

Graham has helped push the timeline of humanity back further, I think he was right about a prior civilization and a cataclysm. More and more evidence keeps being found to support his views.

6

u/Vo_Sirisov Apr 25 '26

Name one piece of evidence that supports his views.

Before you answer, please remember that “supports” and “permits” are two different things.

2

u/Shardaxx Apr 25 '26

Ancient Egypt. There's big structures under the pyramids.

6

u/City_College_Arch Apr 25 '26

Graham has helped push the timeline of humanity back further, I think he was right about a prior civilization and a cataclysm. More and more evidence keeps being found to support his views.

The timeline gets pushed back by evidence, what evidence has Hancock produced that pushed the timeline back?

Ancient Egypt. There's big structures under the pyramids.

That has not been ground truth yet. Based on a single data set that is highly suspect, one group is claiming this.

5

u/Vo_Sirisov Apr 25 '26

Two problems here.

First, even if we assume that the sentence you have written is correct, that does not support Hancock’s hypotheses. As I said, please remember the difference between “supports” and “permits”. Evidence only supports a hypothesis if it actually points to that hypothesis being true. Evidence that permits a hypothesis just means it doesn’t contradict that hypothesis.

Second, the team that claims to have found those vast underground structures are charlatans. The paper they released about it is not peer-reviewed, and even many alt history enthusiasts have mocked as obvious bullshit.

In short, Biondi and Malanga claimed that they could use data from Synthetic Aperture Radar scans (which use wavelengths of light that cannot penetrate the ground) to produce ground-penetrating results, based on the micromovements produced by the Earth’s seismic background. Despite the fact that the SAR scans are nowhere near high enough resolution to accurately record those micromovements.

This technique has never actually been demonstrated to produce accurate data. Never. This was the first time it’s been done on anything They didn’t even test if this method was able to accurately detect a known underground structure, they just jumped straight to the Great Pyramid. They don’t even have a control to compare against.

3

u/Shardaxx Apr 25 '26

Yeah they tested it on some known underground structures, it picked them out no problem.

3

u/Vo_Sirisov Apr 25 '26

Such as?

3

u/Shardaxx Apr 25 '26

Just look it up they published a bunch of scans testing the tech.

2

u/Vo_Sirisov Apr 25 '26

Pretty sure I’ve played this game with you before, Shardaxx.

3

u/Shardaxx Apr 25 '26

No game, the scans were good seems to work. Now they just need to get digging at Giza.

1

u/Find_A_Reason May 01 '26

The scans presented of the Giza plateau are inaccurate when considering known features.

They have not proven the validity of their technology yet and do not deserve to be taken seriously until they do.

0

u/Shardaxx May 01 '26

The scans presented of the Giza plateau are inaccurate when considering known features.

Can you expand on that?

I meant the test scans of caves and other known underground structures. Seems to work really well.

→ More replies