Rating: 
Summary: Skeptics Should Find a Rock to Hide Under
Review: I grow so tired of listening to and reading the words of "experts", either in the scholarly sense or in their own minds, who have taken the time to aim their "Science knows best" babblings at the works of Hancock, Hoagland, Bauval, etc. Graham Hancock has written a wide variety of books that have nothing whatsoever to do with "alternative histories", delving into areas such as world economics and the AIDS epidemic in Africa. He is an established and respected journalist -- are any of you? "Fingerprints of the Gods" is a work of NON-FICTION. Any facts used by the author to make assertions, references to the works of others, claims of numerical correlations, etc. are clearly attributed to "the real world" in the back of the book. If Graham Hancock is a "kook", why is it that no one from the "scientific community" has risen up to label his book as a blasphemy? Perhaps the lack of strong outcry can be traced to the indifference and egotistical ignorance with which we treat most individuals who have the gift to think "outside the box". Strange how we choose to accept some, such as Einstein, who in between his studies in relativity became a believer in the existence of wormholes that served as passages to alternate universes, a theory which strikes me as more odd than the thought that civilization has deeper roots on this planet than previously believed. Yet we choose to discard the reasonings of others, for whatever reason.Contrary to popular belief, Hancock's writing is objective-- he presents evidence, provides his own opinion, and let's the reader make up his own mind. No matter how absurd you may find his theories, it is wrong to accuse the man of mutating the facts to fit his own needs. I love the reviewers who have stated "Hancock's book is so rife with inconsistencies, I don't know where to start." You're right-- you don't know where to start, because there is no starting point. Every number, every map, every observation he makes mention of in this book is FACT. In other words, it exists in the "real world". Hancock didn't make up the dimensions of the Great Pyramid to suit his arguement-- they are what they are. He didn't put words in the mouths of Robert Bauval or John West-- these aren't fictional characters. If you disagree, go measure the pyramid yourself. Go talk to Bauval and West. If Hancock had decided to take such artistic liberties, would a lawsuit of some kind not be soon forthcoming? Theories aside, the book is well-written and thought-provoking for anyone who feels there may be a bit more to life than a two-week vacation and a paycheck. Any skeptics who have discovered how 100-ton stones were precisely placed to form a 300 foot-high geometrically-exact pyramid by people lacking any sort of heavy-construction implements, please indulge me with an email and present your findings.
Rating: 
Summary: Consistently intriguing and difficult to blithely refute.
Review: Hancock takes the reader on a comparatively comprehensive tour of the many sites of high civilization that predate our reliance on the easy-to-read-about Egyptians/Greeks/Romans. He raises excellent questions without trying to fit them all into a "here's Atlantis" theory but without leaving them as many loose anomalies without connection, pattern, or greater meaning. It's a masterful job, especially considereing some of his topics are have been often explored such as Tiahuanaco and Giza while others such as perhaps Antartica as the high civilization's homeland, making the other sites remote outposts which does perhaps explain the lack of similar ruins around many of them. Great introduction to serious questions of prehistory.
Rating: 
Summary: Perhaps deserves one and a half stars
Review: Perhaps this book deserves one and a half or even two stars - not for Hancock's silly nonsense about continents charging round but because he does put his finger on some genuinely unexplained mysteries. Compared to Sitchin's "Twelth Planet" - which is a positive insult to the human mind - it is a scholarly work, but still at bottom incoherent, unscientific and full of absurdities. The trouble with even the best fringe science writers is that they are, at best, better at pointing to holes in conventional theories (including evolution) than putting up anything better (or experimentally verifiable) themselves. If you like science-fiction, read some good honest science-fiction by Larry Niven etc., which doesn't pretend to be anything more than fiction. Incidentally, for the benefit of the previous reviewer, the phrase "respected journalist" is a contradiction in terms.
Rating: 
Summary: Hmm... where is the REAL evidence?
Review: Well i just finished the book and i think he had his up's and downs in theories both old and relatively new. I think he's jumping a little to fast to conclusions and racking orthodox scholars and Egyptologists a little too often.. Although i thought that some theories were interesting. He has said that it's his spiritual journey, so i don't know if he's considering a new religion or if he's going to bring forth more evidence to further support his theories. A good read but poor in certain facts. He's right about one thing, too allow other scientific branches access to the monuments around the world, and to search for other types of evidence..
Rating:
Summary: concise,well written un-biased account
Review: Its people like the person from pacifica that thought the earth was flat!Ignorance is bliss they say.Gaham hancock is a well respected journalist within the Uk,who sets out to reveal answers to lifes mystery's.Totally unbiased,superb read.Long live the enquiring mind!
Rating:
Summary: Utter Nonsense
Review: When will the gullible learn? I laughed my head off when the so-called Pyramid on Mars turned out to be nothing but a bunch of amorphous rock. Hancock is a latter-day von Danicken, albeit lacking in originality. Were the book in the fantasy section, I would give it another star for it's amusement value, however, passing off this psuedo-science garbage as serious and seeing how popular the book has been is disturbing. I fear, as Lovecraft pointed out, that we are entering a new dark age of ignorance. Any serious minded scholar of Ancient Egypt should check out Leherner's book 'The Complete Pyramid."
Rating:
Summary: Ever thought history was missing some stuff ??
Review: Graham Hancock takes you step by step through a comprehensive guide to the mysteries that exist in some of the most enigmatic cultures on the planet and finally leads into a facinating conclusion as to the whereabouts of this 'missing link'.
Rating:
Summary: Hancock angers conventional archeologists
Review: This is a very well thought out and written book, and presents Mr Hancock's unconventional theory in a most enjoyable and thought provoking manner. It's comical to watch Hancock's detractors attack him and his theory by simply dissmising it, while doing little to repair the obviuos holes he has poked in theirs!
Rating:
Summary: Nonsense
Review: There is so much wrong with this book that it's hard to know where to start. It's not bad as a travelog (Hancock does write well, if rather breathlessly), but as a supposed argument about the past, it's complete trash. Every single outmoded, out-of-date, discredited argument you've ever heard about the past is dragged into play, kicking and screaming: the Nazca lines, the Maya, the Olmecs, the Flood myth, precessional "archaeo-astronomy," the Pyramids -- you name it, it's here. It's as if all these subjects had not been done to death in previous maverick ancient-history theories (ET built the pyramids, Atlantis, Velikowski, and so on) and long, long rejected by any thinking reader. In short, nothing new here. Just more of the same nonsense. Don't waste your money.
Rating:
Summary: Entertaining, but Hancock is hardly an expert
Review: Hancock's book, as widely pointed out, is quite entertaining... much as is the Weekly World News. The vast majority of reviews seem to take anything that Hancock says as Gospel truth. The problem with this approach is that the people who believe it all so fervently have seldom read anything from an opposing view, so there is no counter-balancing evidence. I am writing this not as someone convinced that everything said by conventional archaeology is true--such would be arrogance as great as that of someone saying that the bulk of archaeology is untrue without substantiation of the assertion. Hancock's logical and factual fallacies have been amply pointed out by many others. (I would add to the catalogue, however, that Hancock shouldn't speculate on Mayan linguistics--his conclusions are absurd.) The biggest shame is that there are reputable archaeologists out there who agree with some of Hancock's claims, but they will now be forced to labor under the stigma of having "Hancockian theories". His work, while popularizing certain theories, has done a terrific job of setting back any mainstream archaeological inquiry into those theories by its sensationalist tone and the strong implications that he, the almighty Grahman Hancock, knows more than he can tell us. Anyone now who wants to look into these ideas will have to dispel the mystical, hidden knowledge atmosphere now. An enjoyable read it was, but, alas, it is very unbalanced and poorly thought out. Those who like it would probably have loved to have read the first Rosicrucian tracts. If you want to read about going too far with theories like this, read Ecc's "Focault's Pendulum", and see the "logical" result of too much indulgence in conspiracy theory.
|
