Speaking as the curator of the Comyns Beaumont Archive and the publisher of all William Comyns Beaumont's books, I must say that I am happy Michael has credited CB here for all the amazing research he carried out and wrote about for over thirty years, concluding with THE GREAT DECEPTION, the long-'lost' manuscript of which, I had many an Indiana Jones-type experience retrieving. Templars and all... I have had, on the odd occasion, to criticise Michael himself in the past for lack of a nod to CB so it is good to have him on my side now! May I just add that Velikovsky was somewhat tardy in admitting his debt to CB, incidentally, not once referencing his work despite the huge similarities in both men's thories - except of course for V's leaving the history of Jews in the middle east where Constantine of York had firmly dumped it.
Curiously I have experience of Graham too, in his more obscure days as a Sunderland teenager - he used to go out with an acquaintance of mine from school. I do dislike writers who make books by lumping together great ill-fitting blobs of ideas that seemingly come out of the blue and don't make sense WITHOUT the reference they have used. They will also leave things dangling, either because they haven't thought their ideas through to a conclusion or, worse, because they still have in their head the unacknowledged source so assume the reader does too. Very annoying! It is no accident that such work is lauded and promoted - it goes together with the general decomposition of civilisation currently underway. To build back worse we must necessarily truly mess up what was there before, and then - now - smash it to pieces, eheu. Since those 1960s schooldays the underlying structures have been removed from education, replaced by mere surface representation comprising incoherent lumps of information seemingly unconnected - like like being taught that a forest is nothing more than a lot of green splodges in the air where you might sometimes grow a mysterious bump on the head, or trip and fall over nothing
I've experienced that man-who-is-the-messenger-of-the-gods syndrome. No references, lots of typos, actual spelling mistakes, the lot - yet they expect to be taken seriously and sadly are, all too often. I worked with one of these - had to part company after he outright refused to put references into his book, which I had already spent nine months editing and getting ready for publication. He's passed over now and is regarded as the legendary genius he wanted to be, despite - or because? - no one can see his book, only twenty copies ever having been printed, which we did for a meeting of his very own secret society. It's sad, because he did have an amount of valid research and some very good theories. He'd even discussed the pyramids with Zahi Hawass! Oh the hubris indeed. So many swollen-footed self-appointed kings of a geographically-incorrect Thebes.
I will, cool. Daughters are taking over now so I can get on with some writing, and we're just finishing off the new site, so willl def send links etc. Putting some great free downloadable material on there since it's the apocalypse and all.
I'd love to know who you're referring to here at the end. (I'd welcome an email if you felt inclined to share.)
Aside from that, thanks for commenting, I def wasn't expecting to get a comment from the curator of the Comyns Beaumont Archive and the publisher of all William Comyns Beaumont's books! :-)
In the last few years I've definitely seen Michael T. endorse Beaumont's work multiple times - so it seems he has most definitely gotten on track with that. You must have had an impact, as did Beaumont's work I imagine. :)
Thanks Brendon for publishing this. I have seen David being interviewed and my first impression was that he was trapped in a paradigm of his own making.
While he's free to criticize the works of GH, why the personal attack of him being "psychologically" unstable, and widely using anti-depressants? And that he heavily uses marijuana? His scholarship, writing, ideas and investigative work are all fair game for criticism, but unfortunately this crossed a line that didn't have to be crossed to make his points. Furthermore, instead of making GH look bad, it makes the author look bad and detracts from his argument and the credible points he makes.
Although I originally admired Hancock I am becoming more and more suspicious of him as controlled opposition figure, particularly with all the promotion he gets. The only book of his which I have read cover to cover is Supernatural and that was pretty good. He does have a tendency to waffle and not reach a conclusion though as stated by Tsarion. His polemic make some good points but the vicious personal attacks are way over the top and make you wonder why he's making them. Maybe it's possible to do some textual anaysis to reveal the ghost-writers which Tsarion suspects.
I have read parts of Magicians of the Gods, and while the breadth of research is impressive I have found the depth to be rather shallow and incorrect, at least in the area I looked into. Just enough research to make a readable book and it's quite true that he doesn't credit his sources.
I suspect Hancock may be a low level mason or something like that who has done a deal to get fame and fortune. You can see him giving a talk to a bunch of freemasons dressed in their ridiculous regalia on youtube. He admits to conversations with billlionaires, who are probably supporting him financially. He has also done a lot of work with Randall Carson who is a mason. Additionally in an interview with Russell Brand, a very suspicious entity who has a prominent 33 tattoo, you can hear what seem to be some coded messages from Brand :
At the end Brand says "I'll like to see you (over Christmas) ... We'll wander around some monolithic sites and I'll say that they're not jazzy enough and there's not good enough masonry and you'll explain that er.. they're aligned with constellations beyond the reach of our kind ... love to your family Graham."
To me it sounded like a coded threat with the peculiar mention of "not good enough masonry" and of his family. Maybe Graham had been behaving badly or I'm suffering from mason paranoia. So I have some sympathy for the situation he finds himself in. Maybe that's why he smokes the weed. I would also like to hear more details about his Ayahuasca experiences seeing as he says he's done it over seventy times. He didn't write that much about it in Supernatural. As I have done it several times myself I would like to compare notes.
Hate to break it to you, but Wilcock gives full credit to the Flem-Aths in his book Source Field Investigations. Chapter 6: A Precession of Prophecies, Wilcock says: "The earth almost certainly went through a catastrophe around the last Ice Age...Rand and Rose Flem-Ath tied together a whole host of unique references worldwide, with impeccable research...." I guess you'd have to read all his books, listen to all his four hour Youtube presentations, all his courses and what not to really crap all over his work.
This is a rather informative article, there is one comment in it that I would challenge, in regards to David Wilcock, as David has quite publicly given credit for first learning of the Atlantis - Antarctica connection in the Flem-Aths books.
Interesting article. I haven’t read any of Hancock’s books, probably because after my attempts to watch him on video, I never could even come close to finish watching one.
I love Velikovsky and he inspired a lot of people to investigate earth’s numerous catastrophes. Although some claim he was mistaken in some areas, they love him anyway. He made people aware of a history that had been overlooked or hidden.
Speaking as the curator of the Comyns Beaumont Archive and the publisher of all William Comyns Beaumont's books, I must say that I am happy Michael has credited CB here for all the amazing research he carried out and wrote about for over thirty years, concluding with THE GREAT DECEPTION, the long-'lost' manuscript of which, I had many an Indiana Jones-type experience retrieving. Templars and all... I have had, on the odd occasion, to criticise Michael himself in the past for lack of a nod to CB so it is good to have him on my side now! May I just add that Velikovsky was somewhat tardy in admitting his debt to CB, incidentally, not once referencing his work despite the huge similarities in both men's thories - except of course for V's leaving the history of Jews in the middle east where Constantine of York had firmly dumped it.
Curiously I have experience of Graham too, in his more obscure days as a Sunderland teenager - he used to go out with an acquaintance of mine from school. I do dislike writers who make books by lumping together great ill-fitting blobs of ideas that seemingly come out of the blue and don't make sense WITHOUT the reference they have used. They will also leave things dangling, either because they haven't thought their ideas through to a conclusion or, worse, because they still have in their head the unacknowledged source so assume the reader does too. Very annoying! It is no accident that such work is lauded and promoted - it goes together with the general decomposition of civilisation currently underway. To build back worse we must necessarily truly mess up what was there before, and then - now - smash it to pieces, eheu. Since those 1960s schooldays the underlying structures have been removed from education, replaced by mere surface representation comprising incoherent lumps of information seemingly unconnected - like like being taught that a forest is nothing more than a lot of green splodges in the air where you might sometimes grow a mysterious bump on the head, or trip and fall over nothing
I've experienced that man-who-is-the-messenger-of-the-gods syndrome. No references, lots of typos, actual spelling mistakes, the lot - yet they expect to be taken seriously and sadly are, all too often. I worked with one of these - had to part company after he outright refused to put references into his book, which I had already spent nine months editing and getting ready for publication. He's passed over now and is regarded as the legendary genius he wanted to be, despite - or because? - no one can see his book, only twenty copies ever having been printed, which we did for a meeting of his very own secret society. It's sad, because he did have an amount of valid research and some very good theories. He'd even discussed the pyramids with Zahi Hawass! Oh the hubris indeed. So many swollen-footed self-appointed kings of a geographically-incorrect Thebes.
And please feel free to share any links to Beaumont's work if inclined. 🙏
I will, cool. Daughters are taking over now so I can get on with some writing, and we're just finishing off the new site, so willl def send links etc. Putting some great free downloadable material on there since it's the apocalypse and all.
We need a Substack too. Better get that sorted asap!
Agreed! Do let me know when it's up! :)
I'd love to know who you're referring to here at the end. (I'd welcome an email if you felt inclined to share.)
Aside from that, thanks for commenting, I def wasn't expecting to get a comment from the curator of the Comyns Beaumont Archive and the publisher of all William Comyns Beaumont's books! :-)
In the last few years I've definitely seen Michael T. endorse Beaumont's work multiple times - so it seems he has most definitely gotten on track with that. You must have had an impact, as did Beaumont's work I imagine. :)
Interesting about Velikovsky to...
Thanks! <3 Yes, I'll email, np probs :-)
just to make it easy, it's: brendan[at]brendanDmurphy.com
And thanks! 🙏
Thanks Brendon for publishing this. I have seen David being interviewed and my first impression was that he was trapped in a paradigm of his own making.
Yes, he wants to be the king of his own castle!
While he's free to criticize the works of GH, why the personal attack of him being "psychologically" unstable, and widely using anti-depressants? And that he heavily uses marijuana? His scholarship, writing, ideas and investigative work are all fair game for criticism, but unfortunately this crossed a line that didn't have to be crossed to make his points. Furthermore, instead of making GH look bad, it makes the author look bad and detracts from his argument and the credible points he makes.
Indeed, it illustrates in him the very the things he criticises. The comments on Mrs Hancock are shocking. (Sorry, pressed 'post' twice by mistake)
Although I originally admired Hancock I am becoming more and more suspicious of him as controlled opposition figure, particularly with all the promotion he gets. The only book of his which I have read cover to cover is Supernatural and that was pretty good. He does have a tendency to waffle and not reach a conclusion though as stated by Tsarion. His polemic make some good points but the vicious personal attacks are way over the top and make you wonder why he's making them. Maybe it's possible to do some textual anaysis to reveal the ghost-writers which Tsarion suspects.
I have read parts of Magicians of the Gods, and while the breadth of research is impressive I have found the depth to be rather shallow and incorrect, at least in the area I looked into. Just enough research to make a readable book and it's quite true that he doesn't credit his sources.
I suspect Hancock may be a low level mason or something like that who has done a deal to get fame and fortune. You can see him giving a talk to a bunch of freemasons dressed in their ridiculous regalia on youtube. He admits to conversations with billlionaires, who are probably supporting him financially. He has also done a lot of work with Randall Carson who is a mason. Additionally in an interview with Russell Brand, a very suspicious entity who has a prominent 33 tattoo, you can hear what seem to be some coded messages from Brand :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MTfgDERn96Y&list=TLPQMDkwMTIwMjM2jHU411IVfQ&index=2
At the end Brand says "I'll like to see you (over Christmas) ... We'll wander around some monolithic sites and I'll say that they're not jazzy enough and there's not good enough masonry and you'll explain that er.. they're aligned with constellations beyond the reach of our kind ... love to your family Graham."
To me it sounded like a coded threat with the peculiar mention of "not good enough masonry" and of his family. Maybe Graham had been behaving badly or I'm suffering from mason paranoia. So I have some sympathy for the situation he finds himself in. Maybe that's why he smokes the weed. I would also like to hear more details about his Ayahuasca experiences seeing as he says he's done it over seventy times. He didn't write that much about it in Supernatural. As I have done it several times myself I would like to compare notes.
Anyway my conclusion is don't trust Hancock !
Hate to break it to you, but Wilcock gives full credit to the Flem-Aths in his book Source Field Investigations. Chapter 6: A Precession of Prophecies, Wilcock says: "The earth almost certainly went through a catastrophe around the last Ice Age...Rand and Rose Flem-Ath tied together a whole host of unique references worldwide, with impeccable research...." I guess you'd have to read all his books, listen to all his four hour Youtube presentations, all his courses and what not to really crap all over his work.
This is a rather informative article, there is one comment in it that I would challenge, in regards to David Wilcock, as David has quite publicly given credit for first learning of the Atlantis - Antarctica connection in the Flem-Aths books.
Interesting article. I haven’t read any of Hancock’s books, probably because after my attempts to watch him on video, I never could even come close to finish watching one.
I love Velikovsky and he inspired a lot of people to investigate earth’s numerous catastrophes. Although some claim he was mistaken in some areas, they love him anyway. He made people aware of a history that had been overlooked or hidden.
Hancock is deluded about many things he is espousing as fact....
:-D