Rating: 
Summary: Critics are a joke
Review: After reading all of the reviews with 3 or less stars I had to rewrite my own review. As is usually the case, critics are laughable at best. Quick to point out anything they can to disrupt a fresh idea, but lacking in their own proof. The only type of debate I found in any of the poor reviews was quotes of other research. Who are you to say which is right? It is unbelievable that after so many examples of great historic breakthroughs came riding on the heels of enigmatic persons who were scoffed and laughed at for their ideas, people still refuse to open their minds. One reader even went as far as to say that the New World was as yet undiscovered until Columbus accidentaly landed here, thereby disproving the ancient maps theories. Hello reader, the New World was only undiscovered to Spain. I'm sure the resident Native Americans would like to disagree that North America was "undiscovered" before Columbus landed. Anyway, the point of the book which most of the disgruntled readers failed to realize is that the currently accepted information may be flawed and here ...... is why I think so. It is not written to lay claim as the new facts on history, only that other theories are possible. One thing is for sure about history.....critics have proved themselves to be wrong over and again. If any of them can give me a rational and reasonable model for how the pyramids were built to exacting standards supposedly without modern technological abilities, I will be the first to admit that person knows more than I, but until then I'll form my own conclusions.
Rating:
Summary: Thought provoking
Review: I originally only read this book because of the mathematical schemes presented on unbelievable scales such as the pyramids in Giza and the astrological connections apparent. I was pleasantly surprised however to be drawn into the multiple theories and ideas presented for the reader to ponder. The only reason I didn't give this book a 5 star rating is that the author does tend to try and slant the delivery of information to support his own theories and conclusions while sometimes playing off those "other" theories. Otherwise I think it is a fine book.
Rating: 
Summary: I Have Seen the Light
Review: Mysterious, chilling, jaw-dropping, inspiring -- just some of the words I'd use to describe this riveting, eye-opening adventure of a book. The facts are undisputable. Only the inferences can be impeached. And one would have a difficult time doing even that. I challenge any of the leading scientists to synthesize the Piri Reis Map with the "standard model" of history, of geology, or of archealogy, to name a few of our most influential discipines from where we receive our most coveted knowledge. "Fingerprints of the Gods" will compel the start of a revolutionary paradign shift that will compel the attention of our most cherished academic institutions and those who would claim to be its teachers. Be warned: You will never look upon our world or our history in the same way again. Buckle up -- you're in for one hell of a ride!
Rating:
Summary: Info-tainment, not science
Review: Mr. Hancock is not constrained by scientific methodology, which makes his speculative book on the origins of present-day civilization both entertaining and thought-provoking. However, credulous readers, before you start stockpiling canned food for the End Times you should go online for a reality-check: it seems Mr. Hancock's sources are sometimes wrongly or inaccurately cited. For example, he places much weight on the "crustal displacement" theory of professor Charles Hapgood, ignoring the inconvenient fact that subsequent investigation of Hapgood's theory found it fatally flawed. At any event, 23/12/2012 (the predicted date of the end of the world) is only a decade away --- stay tuned!
[Aside: It doesn't help Mr. Hancock's credibility that the hardcover U.S. edition of "Fingerprints" was so sloppily edited. The book is full of typos, which left me wondering if the editors bothered to read the manuscript at all, let alone fact-check it.]
Rating: 
Summary: Great work of Literature....
Review: I think when the previous reviewer said this book was a great work of literature, he hit it dead on. It is a great Literary work, considering his theory changes from one book to the next and at will to suit his purpose. He claims to be an amateur and yet I will admit the theory is interesting yet the facts he chose to prove it are as unfounded as the mysteries he chose to disprove. There is no rock solid undisputable evidence to prove to me there was technological marvels on Antarctica or that the remnants are still two miles below the surface.
Rating:
Summary: Historical Evidence of Thinking Outside the Box
Review: This was a great work of literature, discussing the use of pyramids in the most significant ancient cultures. It pushes you outside of the common belief that pyramids were simply tombs. It probes for a pre-history culture that was the seed for the ancient cultures. Some points are lengthy tangents but necessary to understand the relationships that bind the ancient cultures.
Rating:
Summary: Truly Fascinating and Controversial
Review: Hancock has obviously spent many years of research with this book. Traveling all over the world and mapping the sky. His collaboration with several other fields, such as geologists (such as John Anthony West)and astornomers (Robert Buval)has allowed him to see many things that the average archeologist misses. Although in this book he presents some ideas of the pyramids of Giza being antediluvian in age, which seem to have truly little merrit and he does in fact discount this in his later book "Message of the Sphinx", much of what he says bares merrit and is worth thinking about. For instance the age of the Spinx which does contain rain weathering but Egypt has been a desert since the last ice age, and in the oppening chapters he discusses maps that are copied from ancient sorces showing places that eruopeans had not yet discovered and yet they are well mapped. Suggesting some prior knowledge of these places. His vivid descriptions of the places he visited and the digrams and pictures in this book help to bring his quest for knowledge alive. He makes us ask questions of conventional thought and our general ideas of history. If for nothing else this convincing argument of the vast knowledge of the ancients deserves a good read.
Rating:
Summary: Thought provoking and intelligent read.
Review: A scholar's well documented collection of information regarding pre-history and it's radical connections with the present world. His perspective is controversial to many of today's scientific ideas, but he is not alone in his beliefs. All together it is a good read and will open the door to several more, similar texts. If you have any interest at all in ancient civilizations, and an open mind towards concepts that are rocking the boat in modern scientific circles, then this book is for you.
Rating: 
Summary: Some questions that history readers formulate on their own
Review: Hancock surely makes some interesting questions, not answered by mainstream archeology. On the other hand, he seems to have had an idea and made all facts fit it, disregarding other input or other interpretations.
Also, he has used a number of fiction writers tricks to make those ideas come through (like finding a "badie" - in this case, archeologists to- get sympathy for his ideas).
Anyway, he does point to some unexplained archeology misterys, which haven't been well explained, so it may be worth reading for those not particularly keen on dry history reading. On the whole though, it is the kind of book that that just makes its author wealthier.
Rating:
Summary: Not sure what the complaints are about
Review: I've been browsing the reviews posted here, and something really stands out in most of the negative reviews of Hancock's work. I've noticed that most of the negative reviewers have a tendency to point to 1. The "crime" of using a hypothesis as a starting point and attempting to find evidence to support it; and 2. The claim that Hancock is "selective" in which of the mainstream theories he chooses to quote and/or rebut. I've read the bulk of Hancock's books and find them to be stimulating, although I have not done as much independent research on these subjects as I would like. The research I have done, in the form of random selections of mainstream (for lack of a better word) history and archeology books, is very interesting. When I take into account the criticism of Hancock et al and apply it to more contemporary work, the same criticism can very easily be applied. Scientific theory demands that a scientist begins with a hypothesis and seeks a way to prove it based upon evidence which supports it. This is what Hancock does, and this is what any other scientist or researcher worth his salt does as well. A "scientific" book that is written using random evidence piled on top of each other, making no point, inference, or conclusion is not scientific by definition; it is a reference book or bibliography at best. Nobody would start a book without some notion of the idea he/she wishes to put across to the reader; this principle applies to everything from the trashiest romance novel to Stephen Hawking's work. Disagreeing with Hancock's hypothesis is absolutely the right of any reader, but being outraged that he has a hypothesis and has attempted to prove it is downright silly. The burden is on Hancock to prove his theory, and should you find that he has not been complete then you have the right to challenge him, or ignore it altogether. I wonder, also, how many "opposing" sources someone like Hancock is expected to quote within his pages. Many people's criticism includes complaints about how the author does not show enough opposing theories. How many opposing viewpoints are published in the average scientific work, I wonder? How many should any author include within the context of his work? If every author quoted every viewpoint in their work, then every book by every author would be exactly the same! This is not to say that any writer who plucks an idea out of the air and "supports" it based upon one vague passage found in a mummy's tomb has credibility; he doesn't. If Hancock wrote like that, his hypothesis would never fly and no one with half a brain would find him compelling. This is of course not the case, and even those who disagree with the writer should be honest enough to admit that Hancock makes an effort to prove his idea from many different angles. I find that Hancock tends to use many sources of mainstream thought throughout his works, and takes the time to criticize them rationally. I do not agree with all his conclusions either, but he is NOT Von Daniken and doesn't jump to conclusions based upon one flimsy shred of evidence. I find Hancock compelling and many of his theories logical. I think it is very telling that many rebuttals of Hancock (official and otherwise) are so full of spite and venom in their words. There is a very real hatred of people who offer differing ideas of ancient history, particularly in Egyptology, and it confuses me. Paranoia and conspiracy theories aside, there is a reluctance to accept ideas which differ from those which have been "established" for as many years as Egyptologist's theories have, sometimes for no other reason than to protect many people's life's work. Unfortunately for them, scientific and historical theory demands that no matter how entrenched a theory is, new evidence can and should change minds... "Life's work" or not. Our understanding of history is changed (for better or for worse, sometimes) constantly, when we are honest about it (the discovery of Troy, for example).
|
