Hapgood's Earth Crust Displacement Theory

Charles Hapgood's Earth Crust Displacement Theory

.

Posted on You Tube by See the Pattern@SeethePattern Oct 11, 2021

.

Hyperdiffusionism in its Context

@lukecaverns  @lukecaverns 1 day ago: Yeah the accusations of Graham's theories being racially driven is ridiculous.

Why not actually address what has ACTUALLY been written (it is written, so if you don't understand it the first time, you can re-read it until you do) instead of what you "think" was said? Then.... when you have familiarised yourself with the actual argument.... you can say WHY you think it is not true. Any hyperdiffusionist interpretation is predicated on the idea that one culture "had to be shown by somebody outside" how to do something. If Hancock's "theories" (which are nothing of the kind in fact) fit into that category, then they incorporate ideas of cultural superiority like all the rest. Prove he's not been employing hyperdiffusionism (present in his writing about a lost civilization FROM THE BEGINNING) before glibly saying his critics have somehow got it "ridiculously" wrong.

 

PseudoArchaeology: Views from Down-Under

Member of the US-based Comet Research Group Marc Young ( @Marc_Young_90) from Flinders University in Adeleide holds the view that "archaeologists are not scientists, and in fact, the discipline of archaeology is profoundly pseudoscientific". He justifies why in a text here: "This is 100% true, and i'll explain why"

This may be compared with his earlier essay 'Spiritual and Intellectual Colonialism: The Crusade Against Pseudoarchaeology', published 10th July 2020 on the Graham Hancock (sic) website).* In the eaerlier text he fails to define the topic, omitting iun what way archaeology differs from its imitation (clue: in the accepted methodology[ies] employed) merely noting superficially:

"...the only correct definition, based in etymology: pseudo is defined as ‘having the appearance of, false, fake, not genuine’. Thus, pseudoarchaeology is herein defined as something that is not archaeology but is masquerading as archaeology. "

I do not know how archaeology is taught in Flinders University, and which textbooks they use, but the second essay of their recent graduate is equally disappointing and lacking substance.

Basically if you read it carefully, his argument boils down (only) to "archaeology is pseudarchaeology, because archaeology is pseudoarchaeology". He can only quote basic literature from the 1980s(!) and has not grasped the essence of British post-processual argument.

He even misuses this, making a pastiche of two separate quotes by Hodder, omitting the qualifying arguments between them (he cites it as "Hodder (1984:467–468)", but the actual reference is Hodder (1984: and 30).** Apart from his cut-and-paste cherry-picking of statements made by yesterday's "authorities", he also harks on about the hoary old standby (non)argument about some unseemly US ruckus about "Clovis first". His only other argument is in fact from physical anthropology and ethics of handling of human remains, a subject that is indeed controversial everywhere.

I think the author of these texts is seeking validation and finds it among the guffawing lads of the "alternative-history" YouTuber crowd and is playing to their  gallery. Above all though, because I do not doubt his sincerity, he fails to step back (probably through lack of experience) from a focus on narrow issues involving methodology-free "Atlantist-catastrophist" ("alternative") models of the past to see the wider panorama of the discipline as a while before reaching his "conclusions".

* ...written, as he says, "in my History of Archaeological Thought class [in his undergraduate university course at Flinders PMB] with Former President of the World Archaeological Congress, and editor of the Encyclopedia of World Archaeology, Claire Smith, who graded it with a High Distinction". I would have marked it down for an excessive use of colloquialisms for a piece of academic writing.

** I think what he actually means is the same phrases reused by Hodder in another work of his (Theory and Practice in Archaeology 1992) where these separate phrases appear on pages  110 and 114 - but since these page numbers dont match up either, perhaps Young is citing yet another cut-and-paste fragments taken from yet another work by Hodder...

The work cited by Young: Hodder, I. 1984 Archaeology in 1984. Antiquity 58(222):25–32.

PseudoArchaeology and Human Remains

Pseudoarchaeologists and their concern (or lack of it) on ethical issues connected with the handling of human remains:

Fredrik Trusohamn,
'How Pseudoscience Exploits Human Remains for Alien Theories'
Digging up Aliens January 9, 2025 by

Early Hancock

Graham Hancock gets upset that it is often noted that hyperdiffusionist interpretations of the past like his have roots in some kinds of supremacies or -centrisms. In this context, it is worth noting also one of his earlier books exhibits this (Aaron Rabinowitz, 'Netflix’s Ancient Apocalypse with Graham Hancock: from alien conspiracies to antisemitism' The Skeptic 15th February 2023)

Things go from outlandish to disturbing when you get to Hancock’s book The Master Game: Unmasking the Secret Rulers of the World, coauthored by Robert Bauval and originally released under the name Talisman: Sacred Cities, Secret Faith. Hancock’s website claims the book reveals a “secret religion that has shaped the world”, and if you’re a regular reader you know exactly where this is going. However, I need to be careful, because The Master Game really puts the (((J))) in JAQing Off. As David Barrett puts it in his review of the book, the incoherent mess of an argument culminates in the authors promoting “the old Jewish-Masonic plot so beloved by ultra-right-wing conspiracy theorists”.

The Talisman squeezes in a whole lot of mumbo-jumbo from 'esoteric' claptrap popular at the time, but seems to owe a large deal to the 1982 book by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh, and Henry Lincoln: "The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail", in turn borrowing ideas from the 1967 book L'Or de Rennes by Gérard de Sède, with the collaboration of document forger Pierre Plantard (they both also lie behind the equally fictional 'Da Vinci Code' by Dan Brown). From amazon.pl

Keeping an Eye on the Goalposts

After the Hancock-Dibble debate on the Joe Rogan Experience in April (and indeed towards its end) Graham Hancock started to deny that he'd said a number of things about his hypothetical lost civilisation that it seems he had in fact claimed he had "evidence" for. Unpicking this gaslighting would require going through all of his writings to reference where he'd claimed this or that, and how those claims shifted. It seems to be that since his (Hapgood's and Donnolly's) basic source was Plato's text, it might be worth trying to extract from that text what Plato thought would be the archaeology that we would be looking for IDF he imagined this polity existed. To save time, and get a more "mechanical" and not subjective review, I asked the Grok AI programme: " Can you please take Plato's full description (https://www.ascendingpassage.com/plato-atlantis-timaeus.htm) of Atlantis and write me what the material culture would look like? What kind of economy did they have, what kind of tools would they  have used, did they mine and work metals? What other materials did they produce and use? Thanks".

Based on Plato's description in "Timaeus" and "Critias," here's an analysis of the material culture of Atlantis:

Economy:
• Agriculture: Atlantis was described as having fertile soil and abundant water sources, suggesting a strong agricultural economy. The use of irrigation systems ensured great

Ojuelos de Jalisco Alien Carved Stones

The so-called “Alien Carved Stones” provenanced "Ojuelos de Jalisco" masquerading as mysterious relics of a forgotten civilization that regularly appear for sale on eBay are a well-known type of modern hoaxes—tourist souvenirs designed to appeal to enthusiasts of ancient alien theories. They often have the form of pendants or other wearable jewellery.

Sellers often promote these objects as “authentic Aztlan (sic) artifacts” or as evidence of extraterrestrial contact in deep antiquity. The stones typically feature carved figures with large almond-shaped eyes, elongated heads, and scenes involving UFO-like spacecraft. Some listings even claim the pieces are made from a mixture of stone and meteorite fragments, implying cosmic origins. The sellers sometimes assert that carbon dating has been performed on adhesives used in the pieces, allegedly yielding dates thousands of years old. These reports are unverifiable and are not supported by recognized academic institutions. 

There is no credible scientific evidence supporting their authenticity. Mainstream archaeology uniformly classifies them as modern fabrications created to capitalize on popular “ancient astronaut” fringe narratives. Most of these stones are produced by local artisans in the Mexican state of Jalisco, particularly in the towns of Lagos de Moreno and Ojuelos de Jalisco. They are made for the tourist market and for online collectors seeking unusual or sensational items. The carved beings resemble the stereotypical “gray aliens” popularized in 1950s science fiction and later reinforced by UFO subculture. They do not have any stylistic links to figures found in pre-Columbian Mesoamerican art. These stones instead mirror contemporary pop culture. 

Mexican law strictly regulates the sale and export of genuine pre-Columbian artifacts, which are considered national patrimony. So, even the stupidest buyer should realise that objects openly marketed and shipped internationally through platforms like eBay are almost certainly modern replicas or outright fakes. Authentic antiquities would be subject to seizure.