This is a letter I recently wrote to Graham Hancock, which I wanted to put out there for anyone else interested in his work to read and consider...
I've just finished watching your presentation on You Tube at the 2012 Conference, tying together many of the mysteries of ancient civilizations. I thought that it was brilliant and very eye-opening, informative and inspiring.
BUT, I want to challenge you on two main points. Or rather, I want to pass on the possibility of a couple of different theories...not that I came up with them in the slightest, I've just read about and studied them both over the past year or so and think they make a lot more sense than the prevailing theories on these two very important topics.
First is the theory of the ice ages. I realize that the ice ages are so presumed to have occurred, and there is so much evidence supporting them, that it might seem ridiculous to challenge the notion that they actually existed. Because, the evidence that they did exist, and marked and scarred our Earth's surface so visibly and profoundly is proof enough, right?
About a year ago I read a book by Barbara Hand Clow, "Catastrophobia" talking about something you also mentioned in your lecture, humanity's amnesia. She says that humanity is basically gripped in a terrible fear that we've been living out generation after generation, because of a massive event that occurred on Earth many thousands of years ago. This also ties into all of the so-called myths that you talked about in cultures throughout the world, of floods and other terrible natural disasters that occurred in our distant past. In that book, Clow references repeatedly another book which she says supports the notion of this major catastrophe that struck the Earth and ancient humans, titled "Catcalysm! Compelling Evidence of a Cosmic Catastrophe in 9,500 B.C." by D.S. Allan and J.B. Delair.
I was curious to see what the scientific basis supporting this supposed catastrophe might consist of, so I ordered a copy of that book and read it. I can't even begin to summarize the contents of it, because the evidence they present is so monumental and overwhelming. They look at the evidence worldwide across many different scientific disciplines, and through mountains of evidence that all point in the same direction, they build an amazing case that, in short, this massive, sudden event that struck the Earth in our distant past, and scarred the Earth's surface, its inhabitants and humanity as a whole, has been misinterpreted by the scientific community for the past few hundred years, as being the result of ice ages.
If you get the chance I highly recommend giving it a read. Although it is a thick book and the evidence they present can get tedious at times, and some of the ideas veer off a little from the central idea (such as attempting to explain what actually caused this disaster, in which they get a bit overly-speculative) it's really fascinating and informative, and the case they build is staggering.
And another important point should be made on this. The date they cite as for when this occurred (which is actually based on the average date found from thousands of different examples of carbon dating) is quite close to the date cited by Plato which you also mentioned, roughly 9,500 BC. And it is also fairly close to the time frame you mentioned repeatedly of about 12,000 years ago, being when the Giza Pyramids complex and Angkor Wat seemed to be hearkening back to. Could it be that these monuments are actually referencing this event when Earth and humanity was completely altered by this global disaster? That is simply my own notion I came up with while watching your presentation, and wondering why these ancient monuments could possibly be so obsessed with that time frame.
So, onto the second major theory I'd like to address, the precession of the equinoxes. You cited the prevailing theory, which even now is simply a theory and unproven, that the precession of the equinoxes is a result of a slight wobble of sorts of the Earth on its axis, causing the Earth's viewpoint in relation to the cosmos to shift ever so slightly through the ages over a period of roughly 26,000 years.
An astrophysicist, Walter Cruttenden, has an entirely different theory, which he has been studying for the past decade or so. He thinks that the precession of the equinoxes is a much more monumental event. Instead, he is exploring the possibility that this 26,000 year cycle is the result of our solar-system's orbit around another star. In other words, we are a binary star system, but our other sun is so far away that it isn't even apparent to us that we're revolving around it. This would mean that we are actually moving through space much faster than physicists currently believe.
Interestingly, on his website he cites a recent experiment by NASA in which they attempted to calculate the movement of our solar system through space. After much consideration and calculations, etc. of how to do it, they sent some extremely sensitive gyros up into space. The results they received back were so perplexing, that they scrapped the program because they assumed the gyros must have malfunctioned. The results they got back were that our solar system was actually moving much, much faster than they could have imagined.
And, guess which star Cruttenden believes is a serious candidate for our second sun? Sirius. Hmmmm, weren't the ancient Egyptians rather obsessed with Sirius? To the point that the Great Pyramid of Khufu, as you said in your lecture, is situated in relation to it, or at least one of the two tunnels within the pyramid points directly to it? Here's Cruttenden's website with more info about that:
So take care and if you find the time, I truly look forward to any thoughts you might have to share on all of this.
Sincerely, Gabriel Morris
PS. I would also love to hear anyone else's thoughts on these subjects, so feel free to add to the discussion below.
PPS. If I actually get a response from Graham, then I'll post it here as well. I sent it to his Facebook account, and I'm sure he's super busy and swamped with messages so I won't be surprised if I never hear back from him. But if I do it will be an exciting letter to read I'm sure...