Rating: 
Summary: I don't know science, but I know what I like
Review: I'm no archeologist or paleontologist or any ologist. I've
just watched too many specials on TLC. But man, I love this
stuff. The details and intricacies used to put this whole
thing together is just fascinating. Maybe it's a load of
poop. maybe he's onto something... I'll never know, myself,
but I love the intrigue. This semi-real historical mystery
gets my giddy sense of adventure revving. If you dig those
specials, ancient mysteries and such, you'll get into this
book. yay!
Rating: 
Summary: AWESOME!!!
Review: This is a entertaining and educational book. You lean so much from reading this book. If you you're interested in what our ancient history and our true history, this is a great book to read.
Rating:
Summary: A Scientist's Opinion
Review: Intriguing. Thought provoking. Well written and documented. The only aspect missing is the even handed "alternative explanations" proffered by the mainstream scientific community. Nonetheless, an enjoyable read -- makes you want to visit these far away places and see for yourself!
Rating: 
Summary: Hancock plays on the ignorance and credulity of readers
Review: This book is pseudoscientific nonsense. Hancock uses all sorts of tricks to persuade reader's (and he loves the appeal to authority); it makes me sick to think that so many people will fall for it.Most of the "facts" and "data" that Hancock uses to support his vaguely articulated thesis are utter misrepresentations. A glaring example: His thesis rests on the assertion that the earth's crust was displaced in a short period of time (Hapgood's thesis; the earth's crust being like the peel of an orange, loosely attached to and rapidly sliding over the core). If this were to have happened to the earth's crust, then it would have caused catastrophic damage to everything on the earth's surface (in fact, the energy required to displace the earth's crust in so short a time would probably have resulted in the earth being reduced to interstellar rubble; but oh well, don't let the facts get in the way of an entertaining notion); according to Hancock's thesis, this crustal displacement destroyed some great, "lost", technologically and spiritually advanced civilization to which all 'historic' civilizations owe their heritage. Now, go and read the references Hancock cites as supporting this hypothesis (never mind the fact that Hancock does not cite and discuss scientific findings that do not support his thesis). I did. He cites some papers in legitimate, peer-reviewed science journals (good for Hancock as this differentiates him from most pseudoscientific crackpots) and those are the citations that I read for myself. The main article Hancock relies on for the crustal displacement theory does in fact support the claim that the earth's crust has been displaced in the past. And that is what Hancock in fact says. But the authors of this peer-reviewed article clearly state in no uncertain terms and their data quite plainly support their conclusion that the crustal displacement occurred over a period of many, MANY MILLIONS of years and occurred many, many MILLIONS of years ago, long before anything resembling a human being walked the planet. Hancock's crustal displacement theory requires that the displacement occurred a few thousand years ago and occurred over a very, very short period of time (like a few years, months,...). Clearly, Hancock is blatantly misrepresenting the results of real science. I found many, many other examples of this sort of deception and intellectual dishonesty. So frequent is it that there is no way Hancock can be forgiven on the basis of carelessness or the like. If you insist on paying money for this book and if you read the book, I strongly urge that you do yourself a favor and check for yourself some of the original sources that Hancock cites, especially those from peer-reviewed science journals and not the books from other authors who suffer from the same dishonesty as Hancock. There is very little work involved and besides, the library is a very pleasant place to read.
Rating:
Summary: Exhaustive research drives the plausibility of this theory
Review: Frankly, I wasn't convinced that the point the author wanted to make had any reasonable weight behind it till I was well into the book. The book emphasizes its rationale by dwelling on an extremely wide range of seemingly unrelated "myths" and facts, and at various stages, I did feel that the discussion at that stage led to presumptious conclusions. However, when I had reached about halfway through the book, it dawned on me that the theory wasn't developed on the basis of any singular argument, but was ably supported by several aspects of the author's research. If we look at any single theory, it may not sound very encouraging. However, when viewed as a whole, the conclusions are firm and compelling. Quite an eye-opener, this...
Rating:
Summary: Fresh and thought-provoking.
Review: If you are searching for a fresh perspective on ancient history -you will deffinitely find it here. Hancock challenges the traditional views of universities and Egyptologists who seem to ignore evidence which contradicts established theories. However, the reader should be aware that Hancock does just the same, by relying too much on myths spread by word-of-mouth and very little on hard evidence. This is an excellent read for those who like their ideas challenged, but readers with limited knowledge of ancient history should beware of being led to premature conclusions.
Rating: 
Summary: Guess work!
Review: I really wanted to enjoy this book. That being said, I found the authors traveling around the world and speculating on old fables to be quite annoying. The author does very little to back up his speculations with any documentation or fact. Maybe I'm old school, but I can do without guess work. Give me some fact.
Rating:
Summary: re-think what you have been taught
Review: This book really opened my eyes to how systemized my thinking had become - taking in everything as taught. I mentioned Graham Hancock to some archeologists I was staying with during a recent visit to Cairo and they fobbed him off as irrelevant and amateurish. However, I found his ideas and thoughts amazingly thought-provoking and having visited many of the places that Hancock analyses in his book found it even more fascinating.
Rating:
Summary: A Wonder working book!
Review: This book is the best book ever written, execpt for Hancock's The Sign and the Seal, and the Hiram Key: Pharohs, Freemasons, and the Discovery of the Secret Scrolls of Jesus. This book makes you think. It seems a little on the farfecthed side, but all author's aren't perfect. If you're interested in the revelation of hidden secrets, and ancient and lost civilzation, and if you arn't, read it! If you read the Sign and the Seal: The Quest for the Lost Ark of the Covenant, this book is a great sequel!
Rating:
Summary: Prove it...
Review: This is a very interesting book...the theories are fascinating. However, they are, in my opinion, based on bad science. I find it hard to believe that this Antedeluvian civilation vanished without a trace...I understand that the "flash frozen" prehistoric animals that are so prominent in this book were, in fact, not "flash frozen". They were, as it turns out, contained in glaciers, etc. not unlike many other ancient species. My most serious criticism, however, is with the shifting crust theory. Having done my research, the shifting crust, or earth crustal displacement, sounds very much like apocalyptic theory that, as is usually the case, cannot be proved or disproved. I don't know...maybe the Aztecs had it right and we're living on borrowed time...personally, I'm not selling my mutual funds!
|
