The above looks like a typical example of how this guy is judging who is "genuine" and who is disinformation. I'm not particularly impressed by this because it looks like he's just employing his personal biases to make judgments on these people. It's almost as if the process is: "Who says things that I agree with and believe, and who says things that I disagree with and don't believe?"
For Graham Hancock in particular he says this:
http://netteandme.blogspot.com/2014/...ls-art_29.html
Graham Hancock's bio on his own website says that he was an "East Africa correspondent of The Economist from 1981-1983." (
https://grahamhancock.com/bio/) But he was going into journalism and wrote for more than that: "...he went to school and university in the northern English city of Durham and graduated from Durham University in 1973 with First Class Honours in Sociology. He went on to pursue a career in quality journalism, writing for many of Britain’s leading newspapers including The Times, The Sunday Times, The Independent, and The Guardian. He was co-editor of New Internationalist magazine from 1976-1979 and East Africa correspondent of The Economist from 1981-1983."
As de Rothschild was chairman of the newspaper
The Economist from 1972 to 1989, Graham could in some way be said to be working for de Rothschild, the same way as all of the journalists and everyone else working there were, and Hancock was also writing for other publications before and after his ~2 year position covering events in East Africa. The significance of this is obviously not as clear as van der Reijden (the author of this information) makes it out to be, and he goes on to say that Hancock was also a "likely MI6 foreign policy asset," apparently also based on the fact that he worked for
The Economist for two years, because I don't see any other reasons ventured.
Btw there have been estimates that in the mid 1800's, the Rothschild family controlled about half of the world's material wealth through their various enterprises. It's a much more complicated situation today, but by van der Reijden's reasoning, an awful damn lot of people are working for the Rothschilds, even if it's just menial labor. When this becomes a significant item of concern is another discussion, and one that van der Reijden skips over.
This is the part that I really have a problem with:
Hancock does not manipulate data, and the data in his books is not even
his data. He reports what other researchers have said (his background is in journalism), and cites those sources meticulously in his books, which is something that cannot be said for van der Reijden's research here. I have read Hancock's work and I have checked out his sources. He footnotes hundreds of sources from credible academic work of the best kind: the kind that inadvertently yet consistently supports a theory that the original researchers didn't even consider, which is a great way to circumvent bias.
The real problem for van der Reijden seems to be that he does not accept the idea of "Atlantis" or an advanced pre-historic civilization around the year ~10,500 BC. Because he does not accept this, without going into the details of why here (except that he believes that the idea is basically a cult), he rejects anyone who talks about this kind of thing out-of-hand and judges them to be disinformation. Maybe we should go back and have a discussion with him as to how exactly he has been able to discount all of this information in the first place.
Hancock doesn't support Wilcock's nonsense either. Even though what Hancock talks about is considered "alternative," he's still rather conservative as far as that goes, not to mention scholarly, and he does not get into all of the fast and loose gibberish that Wilcock is usually talking about. Lots of independent researchers are talking about the period of ~10,500 BC because there is a lot to be said for it. It was the end of the last glacial maximum. It was a time when there appears to have been a globally catastrophic meteor or comet impact, which is probably why the glacial maximum ended. It is also uncannily close to the date Plato gives for the sinking of Atlantis in a flood, which matches both the results of a catastrophic impact and the enormous rise in sea levels all over the world after the glacial maximum ended and all the ice melted.
I could go into other examples but just what I see from this one case is enough to show me the depth that this research actually goes to, and it's not very deep. It really looks to me like it's based on a lot of biases and assumptions. Even if there is a lot of good information in the article about various think tanks, the way individuals are linked in is very tenuous and through the same bias, which at least in Graham's case revolves around the fact that van der Reijden rejects the idea of an ancient advanced civilization.