Gerald Hancock 'FINGERPRINTS OF THE GODS'

Moved to General Book Discussion....
 
Yup. Read it when it came out and went hmmmm, a few good points. Looking at it now, it isn't so far-out at all.
It's speculative ... writers who may make some dough from unusual theories are pretty much forced to make it somewhat sensational, or they sell zero books.
Antarctica... who knows, there's a lot of land to be explored. His theories of Egypt are lagely the same arguments as one finds on youTube today.
The fact that card-carrying historians are still arguing basic issues to this day, makes a book like this an enjoyable read, as it at least tries to put something else out there.
Resistance is automatic from the established scientists, and they have the data to back it up, so nothing proven, but at least books like this point out some discrepancies which would otherwise be bulldozed by the powers-that-be, like the brilliant historians who went to Egypt and guessed that the Great Pyramid was a tomb. Totally wrong, yet still held forth. Its bad scientific work like that which causes a book like this to exist.
 
Thank you, Riff! Speculative? Yes I must agree, until some brave (and rich) soul from the 'scientific community' agrees to test his theories. He's not exactly on a NASA funding budget? But he ties it all together pretty well? I suspect that the You Tube stuff is only out there now because it was in fact GH who ORIGINATED the concept of a vastly superior pre-Egyptian civilization? I stand correction, as always ...
 
Last edited:
People are coming in from lots of angles now, the sheer amount of stuff on youTube is great for poking through.
They cut those blocks with ropes, glue and sand, and here's how!
Then, look upon my Tesla device and see how the blocks were levitated!
Whatever. The largest Grizzly Bear shot by a human on record was in 1910 in Canada, it was 15 feet tall. Before the flood, with the ozone layer intact, things were all a lot bigger and more alive. The size of the cities, if that's what they were, proves it to my naive mind.
I think Hancock brought forth ideas that have always been there, stuff I heard in the fifties is as bad or worse. I heard there was archaeological evidence, actual artifacts or even places they had deep-sixed because they could be too disturbing to the general public let alone mainstream scientists. Could be hokum, but stuff from this century has disappeared without trace so I don't see why they'd draw the line at ancient history.
 

Similar threads


Back
Top