Rating: 
Summary: Remarkable and honest expository
Review: One thing that distinguishes Grahm Hancock's book from the likes of a work such as "World's in Collision" is that Hancock garners support for his theories from well respected scientists in geology and astronomy. Heck, he even has Einstien backing him up on a major point. This is not to say scientists are little christs, as Hancock takes many pot-shots at their irrational dogma, and unfounded conclusions throughout the book.The evidence he brings forth is basically irrefutable proof that an advanced civilization has slipped past conventional archeologies radar. He'll take you on a long journey, studying megaliths in ancient america to egpyt. He'll analyize ancient maps that have some GROUND SHAKING implications(litterally hehe). He analyizes the symbolism and parallels of many ancient myths regarding catastrophies, and suggests that perhaps these common themes, these megaliths were meant to give a message to us in the future, of earth's impending disaster.
Rating:
Summary: Great Book
Review: What a great book. All I can say is if you enjoy historical slueth type studies then you`ll absolutely love this book. I can`t say much more than that except to make sure you have plenty of time to read cause once I started reading I couldn`t put the book down. Great work by a great historian/author. Can`t go wrong with this book.
Rating: 
Summary: Some very good research and suggestions here
Review: Hancock basically joins the dots to bring us a number of clues that suggest that at some stage the crust on the Earth suddenly moved causing some land masses to go underwater and others to appear from out of the water. The land masses then went down contained human societies that we owe part of our heritage too. He backs up his case with old maps that seem to represent some sort of a lost world. His book then moves along developing data on this incident and how it happened and want went down. When all is said and done you feel that Hancock has a case that is not easily dismissed but not easily proven either. Geology may agree with some things that Hancock has to say and disagree with others. Archeologists accept that it is highly plausible that we are missing gaps in our time-line that are hard to explain and that catastrophes certainly do happen. So what you get a mixed bag, but nothing that we should slam but at the same time nothing that we should be rewriting history with. What it does do is say that much more research of the artic should be done and certainly we should keep an open mind on sudden shifts in the Earth's crust. Even the skeptics can not truly get science to ditch this one and the unorthodox scientists have a hard time pushing it. It does however make for an interesting read and certainly you would not be wasting your time with it. Heck, you just might even raise your IQ a few points.
Rating: 
Summary: Three Major OBJECTIONS
Review: I have read the book and most of the messages in this page and I want to summarize a little. These are, as I see it, the three major objections to Hancock's theories: * Objection 1: According to the book, the Earth crust's shift would have provoked a relocation of polar icecaps. This would have resulted in a massive ice melting and floods. In that case the coast lines around the world would have changed, right? Then, how is it that the Piri Reis map represents EXACTLY the same coastline as it has been found to lie under the Antartic ice cap? And, if you retort that the original map (on which the Piri Reis map is ultimately based) was made after the crust shift floods, well, was not then the Antartic continent already under the present ice cap due to its new polar location? And again, if you say that it was drawn AFTER the melting of the old ice cap and BEFORE the appearance of the present icecap, does not the forming of the present antartic ice cap also disturb the coastlines around the world? How is it that the antartic coast remains the same today as in the map's times? * Objection 2: The grouping of stars in constellations, giving them names of animals or mythological heroes is just a matter of culture. How can we assume, for instance, that the constellation that we call Leo (the Lion) was also seen in other civilizations as forming the figure of a lion? *Objection 3: The author presumes that the transit from uncivilized ways of life to civilization is a question of ignorance. Anthropology says it is a question of economics and ecologics. In other words, as long as their natural enviroment supports them, the hunters-gatherers and the forraging cultures have no special interest in adopting civilized lifestyle. The only solution I see for Objection 2 is that the supposed Lost Civilization's survivors passed over the constellations' names and representations to the budding historical civilization's people. Were there lions in Lost Atlantis?
Rating: 
Summary: I hear the Cuckoo singing ...
Review: When I first read Hancock, immediately after the quite ludicrous Zacariah Sitchin, I thought he was onto someting interesting and original. At least, for the first two thirds of the book he doesn't insult the readers' intelligence the way Sitchin does, and he seems to have actually done some research. Unfortunately from there on it goes over the top with ridiculous claims, bad logic, wrong science and history, fractured arguments and a general descent in intellectual quality. This is a pity because Hancock can write quite well and if he had remained disciplined and plausible might have said something genuinely though-provoking. I guess he'll make a lot of money from the ignorant, though.
Rating:
Summary: Great Book
Review: The subject matter of this book will always draw criticism, but science and history in the areas covered by this book have no answers of this own. Critics are attacking certain theories of the authors as if they are crucial to the book as a whole, when rather he states a series of possibilities in different areas that are not necessarily dependent of one another. My advice to readers of this book is to read other books discussing antediluvian civilization and links to ancient society and draw their own conclusions. Nowhere in this book does Hancock say that his ideas are the truth or historical fact but he presents a series of compelling possibilities. Anyone thinking hes trying to pass off his ideas as the truth and the light needs to get out more. :)
Rating:
Summary: A rip-off of THE JUPITER MENACE
Review: I read FINGERPRINTS OF THE GODS years ago and thought it was immensely readable and filled with startling ideas. It sorta opened my eyes on a few things. Even though I usually don't believe everything these kind of books say, I always keep an open mind and love reading books about esoteric ancient mysteries and thought this book introduced a couple new ideas. Well, I was wrong. I just watched a documentary called THE JUPITER MENACE and almost everything Mr. Hancock wrote in his book was taken from this obscure end-of-the-world documentary. I was totally startled by the obvious similarities between Hancock's book and the 1982 film starring/narrated by George Kennedy. The film's main point is that the world will experience a cataclysmic world wide earthquake when the poles will shift. The documentary also uses the concept that what happened to long lost civilizations should be seen as portends for our modern civilization vis a vis this cyclical polar shift event. It doesn't concentrates on Egyptian culture like Hancock's book but the idea is exactly the same. And the documentary also spends time examinning the Oronteus Finaeus map. Like, whoa! Seriously, Hancock's book is a rip-off of the film. It's truly startling. Make sure to check out THE JUPITER MENACE.
Rating:
Summary: In defense of Graham Hancock
Review: Regarding Antarctica in Hancock's controversy, even if the geological record doesn't support some of Hancock's and Hapgood's theories, what I find more interesting are the ancient maps (particularly the Piris Reis map) that dinstinctively cartograph Antartica without the ice sheets. Many of these geological features presented in the maps have only been recently confirmed. How were these maps made centuries before the 'official' discovery of Antartica? Many reviewers have accused Hancock of being all too willing to prove his personal theories. They have stated that a 'critical thinker' would conclude otherwise. But, how does critical thinking lead a researcher away from documented evidence of the existance of a continent that could only have been mapped from the air and thousands of years ago? Many attack Hancock and accuse him as an ignorant researcher because of his lack of credentials. Actually, those in the 'official' archaeological community purposely shy away from such ancient mysteries and their implications for fear of being outcasted by their colleagues. If that sounds silly and unbelievable try getting a grant from a university and tell them you want to investigate what could be the remnants of Atlantis and see what happens> There are "conventional theories" in archaeology and these theories are never challenged without ridicule
Rating:
Summary: Thought provoking, but very doubtful
Review: Here is a quote from a recent article on the antarctic ice sheet. ... "The core was extracted from 1992-98 by a U.S.-Russian-French team at Russia's Vostok research station, the coldest spot on Earth. Petit and team members endured readings as cold as minus 70 Fahrenheit, though the station holds the world record low of minus 129. They stopped drilling about 120 yards short of a subterranean lake the size of Lake Ontario that's been trapped for perhaps millions of years beneath the ice sheet. ... The lengthy Vostok ice core is particularly significant because previous cores taken from Antarctica and Greenland dated back only about 150,000 years and showed just two ice age cycles. The new core reveals four ice ages at roughly 100,000-year intervals, shedding new light on how the icy interludes end." If the ice sheet ranges between 150,000 and 400,000 years old, depending on location in Antarctica, then Hancock's theory of an Antarctic habitable continent and civilization some 15,000 years ago cannot be true. Period. Those figures would indicate that the crustal slippage theory also doesn't happen. Hancock also leaves out something that seems so obvious I cannot imagine how he missed it. There is archeology and geology regarding the filling of the Mediterranean and Black seas. These would have been quite large enough for his civilization, and these conform with the current theory of temperature flips due to screwing up the Atlantic currents that currently keep Europe warm. In addition, the climate flips that create ice ages are, based on current theory which is founded in geological records, very rapid indeed - on the order of a year. Superstorms are quite possible under such circumstances, along with huge floods and snowstorms until the new heat distribution pattern (AKA the weather) stabilizes. Such things would be quite difficult enough, even without having the "sky fall." However! There is a great deal that Mr. Hancock has put together that is quite intriguing. One wonders if it is possible that ice ages do self-limit by encouraging volcanism, for instance. One wonders if there might, just maybe, be a regular enough occurrence of asteroids hitting the earth as to cause tidal waves? If a sizeable one hit an ocean, that could be quite an event. As well, since we have mostly ocean, it would be the most likely place, eh? It is a very interesting book, which I thoroughly enjoyed. But I doubt very much that the central thesis is true. I expect that Hancock has, however, hit on some things that are quite worth looking into aside from his central thesis. Taken as a wonderful piece of amateur investigation, it's great. Makes one think, and ponder, which is the most one can ask.
Rating:
Summary: Revealing Ancient Mysteries - New Theories
Review: Graham Hancock, a reporter for the Economist and Sunday London Times, has done what many of us only dream about, he visited the ruins of many ancient cultures from around the globe and came up with some startling findings and theories. His journeys included: Machu Picchu in Peru, the Mayan ruins of Central America and Mexico, the Aztec ruins near Mexico City, the city of Teotihuacan, and the Egyptian ruins of Giza, the Pyramids, Heliopolis, Saqqara, and Abydos. He begins the book with a chapter introducing us to an ancient map of Antartica, made in Ad 1513. It is called the Piri Reis map drawn up in Constantinople. It is an enigma because the 'modern' world only "recently" discovered Antartica in AD 1818. Graham Hancock ends his book with more information and theories about the reason Antartica may have shifted about 2,000 miles south of its original location, believed to be a subtropical climate, similar to that of the Meditarranean. Antartica is believed to have been situated about 30 degrees north of its present position on the planet. The explanation for its movement is based on an idea endorsed by Albert Einstein who wrote of it in 1953 *before* the scientific community had yet formulated the continental drift theory or the earth-crust shift theory. Graham Hancock provides numeorus references from science and archeology to support his theories and conclusions. Graham Hancock knows how to weave scientific facts and theories, ancient myths and legends, his own personal diary and the photographs his wife took ... into a seamless tapestry which divulges possibly explanations for the origins of the magnificent structures built by ancient civilizations. He is a phenomenal writer who knows how to build suspense and intrigue. He keeps the reader hanging on the edge of his or her seat, anticipating what "hidden" messages of the past will be revealed next. Most astonishing are his revelations of special numerical relationships which were built into the structures of the pyramids in Egypt and Teotihuacan. Most amazing also is the fact that these special numbers are mentioned in numerous myths and legends from different cultures around the world. Dr. Carl Gustav Jung might call it "synchronicity" but if he had read this book he would more than likely call it 'intention'. The author contends the builders of these monuments and structures were trying to leave us, the future generation of the human race ... a message. They did this through archeological evidence, mathematical and scientific evidence, along with information passed down in myths and legends. Once started this book is difficult to put down, althought it is not easy reading, it keeps the reader totally engaged and hooked, right from the beginnng. Graham Hancock manages to connect catastrophic global events of the past, which scientists agree occurred about 10,500 years ago B.C. to the ancient monuments and ruins that are still standing. There are predictions that similar catastrophic events may again occur ... unless mankind changes their behavior on a global scale. This is one book I would give more than 5 stars to it if I could, *very* highly recommended. Erika Borsos (erikab93)
| 
