If you use a fleet of drones at once, presumably you could get an even larger synthetic aperture (radar from each drone bounches off the ground and is picked up by all other drones)? Contrary to movement-based synthetic aperture this would be movement+many-receivers?
SAR from a drone would be peanuts compared to the aperture available from a space plane. On the other hand, if one is studying a specific area, illuminating with a drone and passive SAR with a space plane might be very effective?
Graham Hancock is a fraud. We certainly underestimate the ingenuity of past peoples, but the way that Hancock frames this discourse is full of shit.
Bad Archaeology is a great resource that explains why a wide array of pseudoarchaeological notions and tropes, including those peddled by Hancock, are wrong. Check it out.
Hancock is well-known as more than a bit of a crank. He's interesting (in much the same sense that ancient aliens shows are), but please give disclaimers so you don't confuse the unaware.
I started reading into these supposed "fringe" theories surrounding Hancock and Robert Schoch and the other people talking about these ideas about a year ago and I find some of their arguments credible and not completely nuts and I honestly think there's something more there than what the official, established story is able to explain.
Some of the evidence Hancock presents doesn't hold much weight in my mind and I think he's just reaching but other pieces do.
For example, I think the Orion Correlation and Sphinx Erosion Hypothesis are interesting to look into. Also Gobekli Tepe.
There also doesn't appear to be any indisputable evidence that officially dates the Great Pyramids and the Sphinx to the purported time period of around 2,500 BC, the age of Khufu.
It doesn't necessarily have to be that Hancock's theories for what actually happened are right and he's not adamant they are either, only theories, but I think he's raised enough issues with what Egyptologists or Archeologists are saying is canonical to lead me to believe what the mainstream majority Egyptologists or Archeologists claim is certain fact may just be a local maxima based on interpretation of found evidence at the time the theories were first recognized and an unwillingness to change their position unless evidence to contradict them becomes so strong they can't deny it with a straight face.
It's also fascinating that many large burial / ancient civilization sites have been discovered even in the last 50 years, e.g., Cerutti Mastodon site, and also Amazon civilization remnants using Lidar, which leads me to hope a lot more could be discovered in the next 50 and greatly change what is purported on wikipedia as true.
Great book, highly recommend. Even if you say 90% of it is pseudo-scientific bs, fine, read it like you would fantasy or sci-fi and there's still easily 10% of mind-expanding possibilities in here. I've read many critiques of Hancock's work and there are always arguments and evidence left over that critics don't address. The only way to decide for yourself is to read his work with an open mind. Or don't!
[+] [-] v512|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] madengr|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] throwaway894345|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 082349872349872|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snovv_crash|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kerblang|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] fhjdjksksksks6|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] zarmin|5 years ago|reply
See also: https://www.amazon.com/America-Before-Earths-Lost-Civilizati...
[+] [-] fhjdjksksksks6|5 years ago|reply
Bad Archaeology is a great resource that explains why a wide array of pseudoarchaeological notions and tropes, including those peddled by Hancock, are wrong. Check it out.
http://www.badarchaeology.com/
[+] [-] AlotOfReading|5 years ago|reply
Hancock is well-known as more than a bit of a crank. He's interesting (in much the same sense that ancient aliens shows are), but please give disclaimers so you don't confuse the unaware.
[+] [-] alice22|5 years ago|reply
Some of the evidence Hancock presents doesn't hold much weight in my mind and I think he's just reaching but other pieces do. For example, I think the Orion Correlation and Sphinx Erosion Hypothesis are interesting to look into. Also Gobekli Tepe.
There also doesn't appear to be any indisputable evidence that officially dates the Great Pyramids and the Sphinx to the purported time period of around 2,500 BC, the age of Khufu.
It doesn't necessarily have to be that Hancock's theories for what actually happened are right and he's not adamant they are either, only theories, but I think he's raised enough issues with what Egyptologists or Archeologists are saying is canonical to lead me to believe what the mainstream majority Egyptologists or Archeologists claim is certain fact may just be a local maxima based on interpretation of found evidence at the time the theories were first recognized and an unwillingness to change their position unless evidence to contradict them becomes so strong they can't deny it with a straight face.
It's also fascinating that many large burial / ancient civilization sites have been discovered even in the last 50 years, e.g., Cerutti Mastodon site, and also Amazon civilization remnants using Lidar, which leads me to hope a lot more could be discovered in the next 50 and greatly change what is purported on wikipedia as true.
# Comment Updated.
[+] [-] antonvs|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mjayhn|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dougk16|5 years ago|reply