Graham Hancock

Discussion in 'Science' started by Siskie, Nov 29, 2020.

  1. Siskie

    Siskie Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2013
    Messages:
    508
    Likes Received:
    205
    Trophy Points:
    43
    So what are your all’s thoughts on his ideas? I know he is not accepted by main stream science, but his ideas on an ancient civilization, that made it far enough to calculate longitude (1800s for us), was wiped out between 11,600 and 12,800 years ago is appealing.

    Before finding out about him, I had never considered the possibility that we had done this before. Even if mainstream science isn’t a fan of his, the idea is one you’d like to believe.

    Here is on Joe Rogan’s show. He has a bunch of great clips, hours long, explaining it if you don’t want to read his books:

     
    Last edited: Nov 29, 2020
    DennisTate and Eleuthera like this.
  2. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Graham Hancock is a TOTAL crank. He's been caught out in blatant self serving misrepresentations. He has NO credentials in archaeology - being a writer and "journalist". What he has written is noted more for involvement in hallucinogens. He has had none of his material reviewed or published by science.

    Notice that Rogan has nothing to say. He entered the interview with NO background, AT ALL. He has NO idea what is behind the concerns of others in the field. He knows absolutely NOTHING of the arguments against Hancock's claims or even if such exist. He has nothing to say about issues of funding. He doesn't know about the Topper site, the limits of age dating methods, the time it takes for a civilization to develop (thus how much earlier one would need to look), etc., etc.

    Please remember:

    That IS Rogan's rep. He let's people come on and attack science based medicine and other topics without having done ANY of his own homework. His show has received serious criticism for allowing cranks to use his airwaves without even a minimum of questioning.
     
    Cosmo and Derideo_Te like this.
  3. Grey Matter

    Grey Matter Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2020
    Messages:
    4,401
    Likes Received:
    2,579
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I like his ideas. Especially when he's accompanied by Randall Carlson on Joe's podcast.

    Here's one with Joe, Graham and Randall,



    And here's one with them and skeptic Michael Shermer,

     
  4. Siskie

    Siskie Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2013
    Messages:
    508
    Likes Received:
    205
    Trophy Points:
    43
    The one thing Hancock did for me was get me to stumble on this while going down the rabbit hole of his ideas:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silurian_hypothesis
     
  5. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes. It's certainly true that finding seriously old stuff on Earth is really hard for a number of reasons. Finding ways to search for life is a seriously interesting field, I think - whether on Earth or not.

    Even, crazy ideas including full on scifi can bring up interesting ways to learn about the real world.

    In hindsight, I really was reacting more to Rogan than to Graham. Allowing his air to be used to promote antivax antiscience with NO prep or questioning, no followup from medical science, was one of his inexcusable moments.

    Of course, it's probably worse when serious scientific publicantions such as "The Lancet" make similar blunders, as they did.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  6. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I've read several of his books 10 years ago. He is very perceptive and well informed.

    I agree with much of what he says. Certainly food for thought.
     
  7. Spooky

    Spooky Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    31,814
    Likes Received:
    13,377
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He's considered a fraud among conspiracy circles mainly for the fact that not much of his thoughts are original yet he claims they are.

    He is not well regarded in the conspiracy crowd.
     
  8. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    22,694
    Likes Received:
    11,760
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am very much a conspiracy theorist, so I'm in that 'crowd' you describe.

    Graham Hancock is a brilliant intellectual.
     
  9. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    He focuses on pseudoscientific theories about ancient civilizations, for crying out loud.

    Putting someone like that up against the numerous fields of climatology that are studied throughout the world is just plain silly.

    There is NO possibility for the kind of conspiracy you want to claim. NO group of scientists could possibly come up with a consistent set of results that each of the various disciplines of climatology would have to agree on in order to support a conspiracy. And, that doesn't begin to answer how the fake science would be forced on all sciences throughout this planet.

    EVEN IF there was some sort of financial or political gain possible, that kind of conspiracy is IMPOSSIBLE.

    It's exactly as stupid as suggesting that AOC is going to control all the scientists in China!!
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  10. AlpinLuke

    AlpinLuke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2014
    Messages:
    6,559
    Likes Received:
    588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In the 90's I read all his books, when I was involved in the field of alternative history [and I came from Ufology ...]. With him there was Bauval, a Belgian engineer.

    The first one, the one about the Grail, was curious: he followed the legend of Menelik and the Queen of Sheba to arrive in Ethiopia at Axum where local priests sustain to preserve the Ark of the Covenant [that the son of Solomon carried there, if I remember well the tradition].
    They didn't allow him to see it ... so that journey was almost useless.

    Ancient civilizations aside, he even wrote a book [which I read as well] about the Sphinx on Mars [with a long dissertation about how at NASA they hidden an entire city with that sphinx and giant pyramids, a fortress ...]. In good substance he sustained that a cosmic impact created the great crater and we see on a face of Mars making a general planetary disaster.

    About our planet, in one of his last works he expressed the opinion that an other impact [a comet on Northern America, again if I remember well] caused the end of the last glacial period. I don't dismiss this, there are some clues. The problem is that there are no clues that a global civilization existed on Earth before of that event.

    Probably the most interesting theory [which actually is not from Hankock] is that Ancient Egyptian copied the Orion Belt to determine the layout of the three pyramids at Giza. But just to prove that they copied Sahu is not so easy ...
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  11. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This kind of material is always interesting - including the total science fiction parts. The mixture of real names and events adds to the interest.

    BUT, entrusting the lives of Americans to medical decisions based on the kind of material this author creates is just plain stupid - or even criminal, depending on how it's done
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  12. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,491
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Graham Hancock warned us about what could turn out to be a very important trend.




    How much longer will central Antarctica save our coastal communities?
     
  13. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Cosmo and DennisTate like this.
  14. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,491
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    That depends on what you mean by the word "decreasing" because it does seem that the rate of increase in the Antarctic ice sheet is not as great annually as it was at the time that Mr. Graham Hancock first wrote the statement that I quoted.

    This image is useful..... it seems that a general "Global Warming" trend is much more so pronounced in the ARctic than in Antarctica.

    Is this perhaps due to methane being released from the permafrost in the ARtic??????

    That is one logical theory that I was introduced to by @AboveAlpha here on the forum.


    [​IMG]


    This more recent estimate of the relative increase in the Antarctic Ice Sheet is certainly a much smaller number than the Graham Hancock estimate that may have been as much as fifteen or twenty years earlier.


    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...ns-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses
     
  15. cristiansoldier

    cristiansoldier Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2014
    Messages:
    4,999
    Likes Received:
    3,428
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I am overly familiar with Hancock, since I have never read his books but he is correct about the pre-clovis sites. While the data is not abundant there is evidence to suggest that homo sapiens were in North America as long as 20000 years ago. I am skeptical regarding evidence dating back 100000+ years. His mastodon example seems weak but the evidence should be examined. I did not like his suggestion at the very end of the video that civilization began in the new world. When someone makes huge leaps equating minimal evidence of a hunter gathering type community to the suggestions of civilizations it ruins their credibility in my mind.

    TBH I think if you are looking for ancient lost civilizations you should look in Egypt.
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2021
    Cosmo, DennisTate and WillReadmore like this.
  16. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are citing a 5 year old document.

    Since then, satellite measurements have gotten more accurate challenging the notion that growth in one region is overwhelming the massive melting that has been watched.

    Today, these more accurate satellite measurements verify that Antarctic ice is decreasing overall.

    https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2020/nasa-space-laser-missions-map-16-years-of-ice-sheet-loss
     
    Cosmo and DennisTate like this.
  17. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,491
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    The topic is politically incorrect and tends to inspire intellectual dishonesty but just think about it for a minute.............. was there melting and cracking and sliding of ice off the land based Greenland Ice Pack in 2012 and 2019?

    Yes there was.

    Has there been melting of ice off the world's glaciers over these past twenty years?

    Yes. there was!

    Where did that volume of H2O go to?????????????????

    Do you have a better theory than that much of it went to Antarctica?

    Some of it may have been taken up by trees..... but not all of the melting off the glaciers and ice sheets has ended up in the increase in tree and vegetation mass over these past years and decades.



    [​IMG]



    https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2436/co2-is-making-earth-greenerfor-now/


    NEWS | April 26, 2016
    CO2 is making Earth greener—for now
    By Samson Reiny,
    NASA's Earth Science News Team
     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2021
  18. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Good LORD!!

    Are you really wanting me to believe that the evidence from Antarctica on Antarctica ice volume should be ignored, because YOU think that's where Greenland ice went?
     
    Cosmo and DennisTate like this.
  19. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,491
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Pretty much.....yes!
     
  20. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You need to explain that.

    You present ZERO evidence for your claim

    Why would YOU reject data on Antarctica from the same source from which you cited 5 year old data?

    What makes you suggest that Greenland melt is going to Antarctica? You give NO justification for that.

    Why wouldn't you look for where the additional meltwater IS going, since there are locations for it to go besides Antarctica? What makes you think it isn't going to sea rise and to other of our continents?

    I just don't accept ANY ASPECT of your data OR your logic. If you think you have a justification for ANY of that, go ahead and post it, please.
     
    Cosmo likes this.
  21. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,491
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Simple Logic!

    Some of the water would go to trees because trees hold a lot of water but surely not all of the massive amount of melting off the land based Greenland Ice Pack and the world's glaciers would be taken up by the general trend of more foliage worldwide so..... that extra H2O must have went somewhere..... or surely ocean levels would have risen much much more than they have in the past two decades?!



    http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/gl...al-volume-of-land-ice-and-how-is-it-changing/

     
    Last edited: Jan 7, 2021
  22. WillReadmore

    WillReadmore Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2013
    Messages:
    59,487
    Likes Received:
    16,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is 100% total BS.

    The Antartctic ice has been measured for years.

    None of your post is support for invalidating measurements of Antarcica.
     
    DennisTate and Cosmo like this.
  23. Mircea

    Mircea Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2015
    Messages:
    4,075
    Likes Received:
    1,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I'm not on board.

    Having said that, I do believe that civilization was much more advanced 12,000 years ago than we our told by "historians" and archaeologists.

    I went to the British Library to see for myself, and I am convinced Khufu had nothing to do with the Great Pyramid, and that there isn't a single shred of evidence to support a claim that he built it. All the evidence indicates it already existed. The evidence also proves Sneferu was attempting to copy the Great Pyramid when he attempted to build his.

    While I was in Egypt, I never got a chance to go to Gizeh, but I did see the totally inferior pyramid built by Khufu's son. The whole "pyramids are tombs" thing is a total lie, since not one single pharaoh was ever laid to rest in a pyramid, and unless they find a previously unknown pyramid with a previously unknown pharaoh interred inside, it never happened.

    I am into astronomy and archeoastronomy. I would tell you google, but turds have corrupted the term.

    Archeoastronomy originally was centered around the fact that ancient temples, tombs and certain other important structures were either oriented to the equinox, when the Sun rises at the equator in Spring/Fall, or to the solstices, which is the Sun's northing point in the northern hemisphere and southing point in the southern hemisphere.

    It is the solstitial "temples" that are important, because once you determine the alignment at the time the structure was built, you can date the structure. That's based on the fact that the Earth's axial tilts moves back and forth from about 21° to 24° off the vertical over a period of about 41,000 years.

    With respect to the solstitial orientation of Machu Picchu, it was built 14,000 years ago, or 6,000 years from now. I think we can rule out 6,000 years from now.

    I also get aggravated with detractor's of Plato's Atlantis and hold out the detractors as a shining example of Göbbels worshipers.

    Anyone who knows anything about ancient Greek culture knows that wealthy Greeks sent their children to Egypt to study. That means when you were 8-10 years old, you'd be shipped off to Egypt and spent the next 6-10 years studying. Aristotle was the only Greek philosopher who never studied in Egypt.

    The claim that Solon misinterpreted the text is a Göbbels. Solon studied in Egypt for 8 years. He did not study any text, rather the high priest at the Temple of Sais related the Atlantis story to him and he wrote it down.

    The claim that Solon mistakenly wrote 10,000 instead of 1,000 is a Göbbels and they always intentionally forget to tell you that the priest at the Temple of Sais prefaced the story by saying that, "You Greeks have no history because certain perturbations in Earth's orbit result in cataclysms."

    Solon was clear on the location, which was "beyond the Pillar of Hercules." The Pillar of Hercules is what we call the Rock of Gibraltar and beyond it is the Atlantic Ocean, which is where Atlantis was located.

    The attempts by Göbbelists to crow-bar Santorini as Atlantis are laughable at best.

    Solon described Atlantis as an "island continent." For island continent, think Australia, or Greenland, or perhaps the British Isles.

    Göbbelists want you to believe that the teeny-tiny-itty-bitty-teeny-weeny island of Santorini is an island continent. I invite you to look at a map of the islands in the Mediterranean Sea. Note how many freaking islands dwarf Santorini in size, and yet not one ancient writer ever describes Elba, or Corsica, or Sicily or Crete or Cyprus or any of the other dozens of Greek Islands that are larger than Santorini as an island continent.

    Also ignored is that it is described as a citadel on a hill surrounded by concentric rings of interlocking canals. While that might seem odd, military-minded people like me know that canals are water barriers, and so not only would the canals be a convenient form of transportation, they also offer a measure of defense.

    One other thing. Solon says the waters at the mouth of the Mediterranean were muddy for years.

    That's an important clue.

    Unfortunately, stupid people have ruined and confused everything by incorrectly translating a word in Genesis 6 as "flood."

    That is not what that word means.

    The word used in Genesis 6 is not Hebrew. It is Sumerian-Akkadian and one of 100s of Sumerian-Akkadian loan-words used throughout the Books of Genesis and Job.

    The Sumerians-Akkadians had three different verbs meaning "to inundate" and all three have different connotations.

    One verb means to inundate by rising waters. That would be accurately translated into English as "flood" but that is not the word used in Genesis.

    Another verb means to inundate by overflowing waters. That is not necessarily a flood. Mesopotamian peoples built dykes and dams and they sometimes overflowed for one reason or another.

    The verb used in Genesis connotes inundation caused by rolling waters or waters moving back and forth.

    Folks, that is not a flood, but it is a tsunami.

    There's no evidence of a global flood, but there is a growing body of substantial evidence that there was a tsunami stemming from a cataclysmic event circa 12,000 BCE,

    I won't point out all the evidence, just one that is critical here and that is Antarctica.

    The Western Antarctic Ice Sheet is only 8,000 years old, having been totally destroyed and starting to reform circa 6,000 BCE.

    That begs the question, "How old is the Eastern Antarctic Ice Sheet?"

    Old. About 1.2 Million years old and ice core samples allow for a reconstruction of 8 different Glacial/Inter-Glacial Periods going back some 860,000 years ago.

    What question is now burning in your mind?

    What could possibly cause the destruction of the Western Ice Sheet but have no impact or affect on the Eastern Ice Sheet?

    There's only two possibilities: A volcanic eruption or a comet/asteroid strike.

    There is, in fact, a volcano under the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet -- about 80% of it sits on the sea and the other 20% on land unlike the Eastern Ice Sheet which is entirely on land.

    Unfortunately, it would take either a cataclysmic volcanic eruption on the scale of Mount St Helens or an extended period of constant eruptions lasting a century or more. There is no evidence of either.

    That leaves an asteroid/comet impact as the only possibility and there is evidence of that.

    The asteroid/comet entered Earth's atmosphere at low-trajectory over the north polar region, moving southeasterly and fragmented with the remaining core impacting in the Pacific Ocean in close proximity to the Western Ice Sheet causing its destruction.

    We know that because indigenous tribes in eastern Siberia and the Pacific Northwest of Canada/US describe in their "flood myths" a flaming arrow, a flaming star, a shooting star, a green arrow or a green star causing the "flood" and peoples in the eastern US, Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere do not.

    But, of course, they do not. Yeah, the spherical geometry thing. There's no way they could see it from their locations.

    We have numerous impact craters in the US/Canada dating to 12,000 BCE.

    At low-trajectory, the shockwave in front of the asteroid/comet would have been intense causing oblation and it fractured.

    The cast-off from the fractured asteroid/comet is the evidence. The cast-off occurred at low altitude and low-trajectory and we know that because the cast-off created furrows in the ground before cratering.

    Meteor Crater in Arizona is an example of a body impacting at near vertical or 90°. This asteroid/comet was extremely oblique at 140° to 160° which is why the cast-off created a furrow before cratering.

    If you read studies by Lawrence Livermore Labs and others you'd know there's a charcoal layer covering parts of North America dating to 12,000 BCE along with other evidence of an asteroid/comet impact. Smaller cast-off were effectively molten rock which caused numerous massive wildfires over parts of the US/Canada that burned for months resulting in the charcoal layer.

    The remaining body would have impacted near the Western Ice Sheet and caused a massive tsunami to sweep across the Pacific and Indian Oceans wrecking havoc and a smaller tsunami racing up the Atlantic and inundating Atlantis.

    Yes, inundating. Islands and continents cannot and do not sink, but they can become inundated.

    The Greek text does not say Atlantis sank. Anyone who claims it says Atlantis sank is a Göbbelist. The tsunami swept over the island continent inundating it and destroying all life.

    The destruction of the Western Ice Sheet also caused a rapid rise in sea level.

    I took a geology course at the University of Cincinnati with Madeline Briskine, now Professor Emeritus. Her claim to fame was the Mid-Atlantic Ridge core samples.

    I got to see them with my own eyes. The crystal lattice structure orientation of the iron changes periodically.

    Yes, the magnetic poles shift. No, I didn't stutter and say "pole shift" I said the magnetic poles shift. They do so with a frequency of 435,000 years and an average of 750,000 years, and, why, yes, we are long overdue for a change in magnetic polarity.

    Her other claim to fame is sea level studies and according to her, the sea level is 400-600 feet (not meters) higher than 12,000 years ago.

    Search the internet for university websites that have interactive or downloadable software to play with the sea level.

    Lower the sea level 600 feet and look at the South Atlantic Ocean and what do you see?

    Yeah, a big freaking island continent. Yes, it incorporates the Bahama Islands.

    Florida is 3 times wider than it is now and Cuba is just a stone's throw away, because there's only a small channel separating the two. Cuba isn't part of the island continent, and neither is Puerto Rico.

    So, this tsunami races up the Atlantic inundating the island continent of Atlantis and the subsequent rapidly rising sea level which rose more than 100 feet in just a few hours obliterated Atlantis and put lots of particulate matter in the sea.

    The temperature and salinity of the Mediterranean is different than the temperature and salinity of the Atlantic and so where the two meet it causes the particulate matter to precipitate out and form as silt at the mouth of the Mediterranean making everything a muddy mess.

    That's what Solon was trying to say.

    Since Machu Picchu was around 14,000 years ago, why wouldn't there be a large civilization on Atlantis?

    I don't see any evidence that those civilizations were as advanced or more advanced than us, but they were likely comparable to 17th/18th Centuries.

    There's other evidence. In one of the South Pacific Islands, there are stone structures that are partially submerged and wholly submerged.

    What does that tell you?

    Very obviously they were built before the sea level rose, which means before 10,000 BCE.

    Then there's Malden Island, which is taboo in archaeology circles.

    It is literally in the middle of nowhere yet it has granite structures on it.

    Are we to believe that Stone Age peoples got in their little tiki boats and sailed up and down the Pacific until they found it?

    Okay, so they find Malden Island. It is a volcanic coral island. That means there's no granite rock quarries on it.

    The nearest source of granite is 3,000 miles away.

    So they sailed around the Pacific and found this island and then thought this island literally absolutely in the middle of nowhere was worthy of temples so they sailed 3,000 miles to quarry granite and sailed 3,000 miles to bring it back to the island.

    That's not making a lot of sense, which is why archaeologists run away when you mention it.














    was
     
    Gelecski7238 and Siskie like this.
  24. AlpinLuke

    AlpinLuke Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 19, 2014
    Messages:
    6,559
    Likes Received:
    588
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The real point about ice caps is ... where is the ice.

    The ice of the North Pole are not a problem. If they melt the level of the seas would remain the same: floating ice, melting, substitutes itself with water and nothing happens.

    The problem is the ice on dry land: melting it would send water [additional water] to the oceans.
    And the main depots of ices on dry lands are Antarctica an Greenland. Those glaciers have to remain there.
    If the poles shift and the ice above Antarctica and Greenland will melt there will be a catastrophe [it will take a long time to form new continental ice caps somewhere else].

    This said ... Hancock and Antarctica.

    I remember his works about this, anyway in one later work [Underworld, 2002] he looks more near to a theory of mine [that I elaborated when I was dealing with alternative history], that is to say that it existed a kind of megalithic global civilization [not centered in Antarctica, since Antarctica was already there and already under the ice].

    Now, I've abandoned that idea [megalithic local culture existed, but sure not a global network around the world].
     
    DennisTate likes this.
  25. DennisTate

    DennisTate Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2012
    Messages:
    31,491
    Likes Received:
    2,601
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Perhaps.... but if scientists don't like the numbers that they see........... and if the people who give them their grants don't like those numbers............ unusual things do tend to happen.

    I personally think that Hancock's theories on H2O being added to Antarctica is logical.......
    no matter how many people are offended by this rather simple and obvious truth... that the H2O melting and cracking and sliding off the land based Greenland Ice sheet....and off the land based glaciers of the world had to go somewhere.... and Antarctica is the most logical answer to that mystery that I have seen so far.


    People who think that they are experts don't like this answer though.... because it means that a Carbon TAx.... is a waste of time, talent, money and expertise........ because a Carbon Tax will do little or nothing to prevent ocean levels from rising.... but deliberately turning deserts green on the other hand could be very helpful.

    President Trump's peace initiatives in the Middle East set the stage perfectly for what should obviously happen next......



    After the Abraham Peace Accord turn deserts green...

     

Share This Page