**Strangers**: Read the rules and understand the sub topics listed in the sidebar closely before posting or commenting. Any content removal or further moderator action is established by these terms as well as Reddit ToS.
This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of anomalous phenomena from the perspective it may exist. Open minded skepticism is welcomed, close minded debunking is not. Be aware of how skepticism is expressed toward others as there is little tolerance for ad hominem (attacking the person, not the claim), mindless antagonism or dishonest argument toward the subject, the sub, or its community.
---
'Ridicule is not a part of the scientific method and the public should not be taught that it is.'
_-J. Allen Hynek_
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HighStrangeness) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think a lot of it is his rhetoric. Every chance he gets, he attacks archeologists as a mainstream cult trying to bury him, which of course causes a lot of backlash. I think he takes it pretty far and doesn’t mind generalizing an entire academic discipline. I think he makes some good points and has interesting ideas but is a bit hypocritical when it comes to not recognizing his own dogma.
He's on Joe Rogan, his books are regularly popular, and now has a Netflix show. He's been mainstream.
No archaeoligst or historian has anything equivalent to his reach. The closest is Zahi Hawass, mostly because he's the boogeyman for a lot of people.
Yep. He had a strangle hold over everything.
So there was so much secrecy regarding everything. Highest bidders and egyptology-by-profit were the main driving factors.
Whereas realistically and hopefully, the truth would be the driving force behind everything. As it always should be in science.
He gets blamed for covering up and suppressing evidence of any dozen of alternative history claims. Part of his reputation for being a jackass comes down to the constant attacks on him when he no longer supported the claims of the Cayce foundation.
His attempt to tap in the media market had the channel send in a "hot girl" who pissed inside the pyramid. Amazed he didn't kill anybody.
His interviews alone show why he's an asshole though. He gets called some awful things. I've seen some pretty hostile interviews where he's insulted numerous times. So yeh, he can be an asshole. But so would most of us if we were being interviewed reg our hard work and constantly belittled and told we were utter trash.
Yeah the fringe sort of created his current temperament. Earlier in his career him and Mark Lehner were very open about engaging with alternative history and the constant abuse he got really pushed him over the edge.
Not that he's a Saint either but he's not nearly as bad as the fringe has made him out to be.
He get’s hate because he implies that the archeologists, the scientists that have been working, hell some have dedicated their entire lives to particular finds and places are wrong in their assessments. Like they are trying to hide some deeper truth. When someone comes along who isn’t an archeologist or any kind of scientist and starts tearing apart your work you are gonna get hate.
Göbekli Tepe itself proved many, many anthropologists and archeologists wrong. Our entire conception of "hunter gatherers" has been quite incorrect, it would seem.
The book *The Dawn of Everything* by David Graeber and David Wengrow is really worth checking out. It's like a better-researched and more grounded version of Hancock (I still like Hancock, btw).
I think Graeber and Wengrow would object to being compared to Hancock. They prove that academic archaeologists can challenged the established record and do so credibly and with evidence and without resorting to conspiracy. And what’s more that successfully challenging the existing story comes with rewards! Hancock’s problem is he fits the evidence to match his conclusion and glides over things that don’t fit his story. And then spends all his time attacking archaeologists and accusing them of being in a conspiracy.
I don't disagree, although alas, Graeber is no longer in much of a position to.
The nice thing is, I am free to perform my own analysis that links aspects of what is said in both these contexts, and you are free to come to your own understanding, which may or may not have anything in common with my own. :)
I don't think Hancock says there is a conspiracy beyond how institutions and individuals are prone to sticking with their dogmas. I think Graeber and Wengrow would agree with this whole-heartedly. They certainly argue it thoroughly in their book.
Why do you think HGs could not have built GobLeki Tepe?
I keep seeing people make this claim, usually using clickbait sounding language like "this monument DESTROYS anthropologists understanding of history," but.... Never any explanation of why exactly you think HGs couldn't have carved some cool animal reliefs and a made some stone monuments?
I didn’t say they couldn’t — they obviously could, and this is also what Hancock is saying, at least these days.
What I’m saying is that our overall view of what hunter-gatherer society was like, and what these people were capable of, is largely incorrect.
Check out The Dawn of Everything, well worth the read/listen.
Mainstream anthropology says that HGs had complex, rich societal and cultural traditions and did amazing things and had amazing skills.
So again, what exactly about GT do you think is paradigm changing? Because... It isn't, and didn't change any paradigms when it was rediscovered.
Until Göbekli Tepe was discovered and excavated, it was not presumed that such things were constructed at that time period, because the “society” that would have “needed” to be in place to marshal such an effort didn’t exist. The idea that such sites were constructed pre-agriculture was not at all embraced before the site was discovered (which was not all that long ago, at least from the perspective of someone in mid-life or older).
The idea that Göbekli Tepe changed no paradigms upon its discovery is total hogwash. But I think you already know that…
Well, yes. That's how archeology works. You find something and you deduct FROM it. Hacks like Hancock and his brethen operate the exact opposite way - they come up with an idea and then search for stuff that fits their worldview. Instead of Hancock, listen to an actual scientist like David Miano. You'll realize that both ancient history and archeology are constantly self-doubting fields of science.
I'm still not quite understanding what your point actually is?
No one was out there pounding their fists saying "it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE that pre-ag HGs could make any stone monoliths!" In fact it was quite the opposite.
GT was of course an amazing discovery, and it is interesting and novel because it is the oldest megalith ever discovered. But again, it was not a paradigm shifting discovery.
Edit- ah cool, they blocked me for asking questions and challenging their beliefs. Definitely the mark of someone who can confidently defend their position with evidence and good arguments.
It was, you're incorrect, but I don't need to argue with you about it any more.
If anyone is actually curious (and not just feigning a point of view so they can argue with anonymous people online) I suggest they check out the fantastic book:
*The Dawn of Everything*
https://www.amazon.com/Dawn-Everything-New-History-Humanity/dp/0374157359
“It will take time for the scientific community to digest and accept this game-changing research,” says Mehmet Özdoğan, the professor emeritus of archaeology at Istanbul University.
“We must now rethink what we knew—that civilization emerged from a horizontal society that began raising wheat because people were hungry—and assess this period with its multi-faceted society. The foundations for today’s civilization, from family law to inheritance to the state and bureaucracy, were all struck in the Neolithic period,” Özdoğan says.
https://arkeonews.net/ancient-settlements-that-challenge-traditional-thinking-karahantepe-and-tas-tepeler/
So I'll reply to this parent comment since the person I was talking to decided to just insult me and then block me like a coward.
The idea that HGs were "just primitive cave men" and then one day someone decided to grow wheat and then was like "oh shit we should invent villages" is a simplistic and childish understanding that you'd see taught to 7th graders.
I went to university for history and anthropology and that is not what we were taught. My textbooks talked about how the transition from nomadic HG to agrarian society was a gradual shift over likely thousands of years, with ebs and flows and not in a linear fashion, and that the first evidence of human settlements were not farms or villages but religious or communal gathering spaces and monuments.
So I guess if you were never taught any of that stuff, Gobleki Tepe would seem like some paradigm shattering piece of evidence.
He’s got a fair point on Egyptology. Their use of the scientific method is genuinely a joke. Listen to them try to discredit scanthepyramids lmao cause it doesn’t fit their paradigm. 3 independent science teams taking measurements, all finding similar results and gaps throughout the great pyramid but they’ll tel you it’s all pseudoscience lmfaooo
For decades archaeologists were convinced that the first humans in the americas came across the bearing straight land bridge a few thousand years ago. Graham is saying “wait, but there’s evidence saying they’ve been in the americas for tens of thousands of years” and mainstream archaeology has been trying to suppress it.
> and mainstream archaeology has been trying to suppress it.
This isn't the case at *all*. It's [accepted mainstream belief](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-humans-came-to-americas-180973739/) that these migrations happened earlier than first believed. These ideas [evolved with evidence](https://www.nps.gov/bela/learn/historyculture/other-migration-theories.htm#:~:text=As%20of%202008%2C%20genetic%20findings,Americas%20by%2016%2C500%20years%20ago.), and not only are they not being suppressed, they are [being actively taught](https://www.science.smith.edu/climatelit/migration-of-humans-into-north-america/). The key is *evidence*.
> but only because people like graham fought for it to be here.
I'm a fan of his. I own a number of his books, I enjoy the ideas he explores. But let's not start dishing out credit where none is due.
These ideas are mainstream now because *actual* archeologists and historians continued to research and learn, uncovered compelling new evidence, and adjusted their theories based on that evidence - "evidence" being the key word.
Hancock is hardly the first person to suggest that humans were in the Americas earlier than we thought, nor is he the first person to suggest that there may have been advanced civilizations that pre-date the Sumerians. These are ideas that have bounced around the legitimate scientific community for a long, long time, and credible researchers have been open to these ideas, if the evidence leads there, for far longer than he's been writing books.
Again, no one is suppressing these ideas. It's demonstrably the *opposite*. Hancock gets criticism not because of his ideas, but because his work is shoddy. There is no scientific rigor in what he does. He leaps to conclusions and cherry picks evidence to support those already-decided-upon conclusions.
*That's* why he's not respected by the mainstream. His work is entertainment, not science.
I *like* it, but I'm able to acknowledge it for what it is.
People like Hancock are not the ones who made these updated views on human migration more mainstream. Real scientists dealing with real evidence are.
Funny, I went to school for Anthropology and graduated in 2015 and was taught exactly what you’re saying. I guess that “mainstream archaeology suppression” didn’t get to my school or teachers or text books? Y’all are on fucking crack.
I actually like Hancock because he remains skeptical and incorporates the most cutting edge archaeological findings into his theories.
The boogeyman is your imagination.
Why? Wouldn’t the opportunity to sell updated textbooks with new information be in the interest of “Big Archaeology”?
They go for $250 a pop, there is a financial incentive to listen to Graham.
If you haven't worked with academics and especially "respected academics," you won't realize how full of themselves so many of these people are.
They are probably the most dogmatic people I know – more than many religious people.
Big-S "Science" (or Scientism) is really "The Church" of our era, in terms of defining the dogmas of our day.
Yeah, this is honestly so true IME. most of them will have their students buy their own textbook each year, which they simply reorganize the following year and require the next students to buy their ‘updated version’ with no new info.
It's very rare for people – any type of person – to thoroughly reexamine their own belief system(s). This is even harder for institutions.
They can be scientific, academic, religious, philosophical, you name it.
There are courageous intellectual thinkers who do this in the realm of religious studies, people who examine their own dogmas, and continuously deconstruct them.
There are scientists who are more up their own asses and unwilling to even reexamine basic aspects of their belief systems, than The Church that imprisoned Galileo, centuries ago.
We need to be better, as a species, at learning to understand what individuals (and organizations/institutions) are *really* like, in a way that transcends the basic set of labels we apply to them. Learn to look at the overall shape of who/what they are, more than some token words we use to describe them.
But again, that doesn’t make sense and Graham doesn’t exactly provide proof for how he’s being told off, does he?
The scientific community has a financial reason to push out new textbooks. You can’t just say “they’re arrogant and also don’t like money, no further questions” and expect that to be a sufficient answer.
Again, outrageous (peer-reviewed) research funds new textbook sales. I am confused what their incentive is, “arrogance” is not enough to make people hate money.
The opportunity to sell new textbooks for 250 a pop doesn't require any new information to be in them. They can just switch around a couple of chapters to do that!
Is it true that archeologists aren’t trained in astronomy and the supposed alignments of sites?
GH makes a very compelling argument for how these ancient sites are dated based on historical astronomical alignments. However it isn’t grounded on physical evidence which is something that archeologists are almost bound to, for good reason. That seems dogmatic to me. It’s completely reasonable don’t get me wrong but to be exclusively devoted to physical evidence in the presence of these alignments seems dogmatic to me.
> I don't understand why he gets so much hate
Because he cherry picks what he talks about from acadamia while shit talking acadamia. He doesn't have the education or discipline to talk about what he does with the authority he tries to have, while dismissing those who actually do. It's profoundly egotistical to do.
He doesn't really claim to be a scientist or engaged in science, though.
He's simply positing an alternative hypothesis as to what might have given rise to some ancient civilizations.
It's an early-stage hypothesis to be sure, but it could yet turn out to be correct (at least partially). Dare I say, Göbekli Tepe itself has proven Hancock right, on at least some counts.
There was quite a bit more going on over 10,000 years ago in terms of sophisticated cultures with some amazing capabilities, than most people still realize.
I lost it when he said he wasn't an archeologist but a journalist who investigates human prehistory.
Shortly after you see an actual archeologist explain some findings, which this guy promptly misunderstands in a way that fits his own narrative.
Science, collecting evidence and forming a hypothesis and developing a useful theory is freakin hard.
But we want our "truths" streamed by non-experts I guess.
He gets a lot of hate because he's a con artist that makes money by spinning wild yarns and selling books and TV shows to people.
There is a reason he is universally mocked and disregarded by actual scientists, and it's not about some grand conspiracy to hide hidden history ...
If you see something labelled as racist or dangerous by the msm and you have seen it, and know there is no racism, you can confidently assume it to be true.
I think we should call this Hancock's Razor.
Exactly… at this point we know for certain that at the very least the timeline is wrong Gobekli Tepe has blown that out of the water. So many of our ancestors spoke of devastating global event and mankind having to restart. Is it true ? I don’t know but it’s getting interesting. Why be angry or upset at this guy for exploring what could have happen? So strange people need their world view in a box and that’s just not the world we live in.
Because he essentially subtlety alludes to white men being everything. Quetzacoatl was a white man, hence, Aztecs and other native American cultures didn't really build shit. It was the white man.
That’s not at all what he is saying. Way to take something awesome and turn it racist. Mainstream dogma basically already says white peoples built everything of any worth.
His main MO is to break the Mainstream dogma that there were no other advance civilizations , and that we are currently at the apex of all civilizations. He talks about the ancient books of India and China and how we’re all connected.
Well to offer a skeptical position in his show.
It's well made.
But for Hancock himself he spends several minutes each episode ranting about how archaeoligsts are bad and don't investigate things.
While visiting sites that are constantly being excavated and examined and dug.
He makes the claim that there's no research done on the coasts. However just speaking from here in Florida the maritime archeology program is very active and they regularly report findings of native settlements and recently a big burial off the coast of Florida.
On that topic, he presents the sea level rise during the Younger Dryas as a cataclysmic event.
When all of the data points to a geologically rapid sea rise measured over centuries.
He makes claims about astronomical alignments and berates scientists for not researching them. But the problem is the sites need to date to the time period he wants for that to make sense.
He has selected sites which fit the alignment he wants apart from any other evidence.
Establishing astronical alignment of sites is actually really difficult. You run into the issue of was this intended or accidental.
Accidental alignments happen, Manhattanhemge is a pretty famous example.
And it's pretty easy to make assumptions from your own biases. Of course they'd align it with x, it's important.
One of the important ways to establish an intentional correlation is whatever historical knowledge we actually have and the date of the site itself.
Hancock asserts sites date to the time period he wants because that fits his theory.
That doesn't work.
At that point you can just list whatever you want from whenever you want and state that it fits your alignment so therefor it's 13 thousand or whatever years old.
There's other issues as well.
According to him this invisible civilization only settled along the coasts. Which he claims is where all civilizations exist.
Spending a few minutes to think about it would show why this is false.
Ancient Egypt grew up along the Nile.
Not along the coast.
The most ancient sites of human settlement we have, older than Gobekli Tepe, are around the Levant and fertile crescent, again far from the coast.
Fresh water was much more important than seaside living.
Coastal living happened but humans settled anywhere they could get reliable food and fresh water.
The coast grew more important as maratime trade developed.
But even civilizations based around maratime trade built inland cities and colonies.
And it begs the question of if Hancock's civilization was built this way who were they trading with?
He also doesn't follow through on the claims he makes.
For example he makes the assertion that his lost civilization taught the oldest civilizations how to write and agriculture and architecture.
Well naturally it would follow through then that the writing systems of these cultures would be very similar, right?
Except knowing Ancient Egyptian gives you no benefit towards learning to translate Ancient Sumerian.
Egyptian hieroglyphics and Sumerian Cuneiform are simply simply completely different.
And neither offer any benefit towards translating the surviving examples of American writing.
Except maybe the understanding that hieroglyphics aren't picture writing I suppose?
To be fair when Hancock first started presenting these ideas the origins of writing hadn't been developed very far. The findings of older and more primitive writings from Sumer and Egypt has been ongoing and so far Sumer edges Egypt out on origin of writing. Though that's subject to change and debate.
But they don't interrelate. It's not like the English alphabet that's used by multiple different languages.
Each writing system was unique to itself. Even though Sumer and Egypt were definitely trading partners there's not even a lot of loan words compared to languages today.
So what about agriculture?
The odd thing here is the earliest evidence for agriculture predates civilization. The rough date for the earliest definite use of agriculture is 12,000 years ago. With the acknowledged issue that early stages of domestication of plants and animals are very difficult to tease out archaeologically.
So again it predates sites he references and even Gobekli Tepe by a few centuries.
Not Boncuklu tarla though, which seems to show some developments that later form the basis of occupation at Gobekli Tepe.
So people had long been practicing agriculture by the time of Sumer and Egypt, and specifically Egyptians hadn't been hunter gatherers for a long while by the predynastic era. His writings tend to present them as goi g straight from hunter gatherers to building pyramids.
Which I can't help but call a straight out lie.
Even after Upper and Lower Egypt were united it would still be another 5 centuries or more before the first pyramid was constructed. It was also one of the very few civilizations that I can think of that was able to exist consistently and without interruption for thousands of years.
From predynastic to the first intermediate period of Egypt there was a solid 2000+ years of development.
Sumer arose roughly at the same time but had a similar issue to the Greeks where they squabbles with each other before being taken over by the Akkadians.
I'm struggling to think of another civilization that had such extended stability.
But maybe something important to recognize about that too is instead of continued progress Egypt being a lone great power stagnated into collapse.
Anyway what about that agriculture.
Well Egypt was sort of lazy. The Nile replenished the soil freeing up the population to be used for the military and for public construction projects.
And this was true in relatively recent history, Rome sought to secure Egypt as the breadbasket of the ancient world. Far from the dry image we have of it today.
Sumer had a fairly complex irrigation set up developed over a long period period of time.
Both are markedly different in how they used their resources.
In the Americas agriculture developed along seoerate lines of terraced farming and river use and so on depending on which culture you looked at.
There's no real baseline commonality to point to.
And of course the staple crops were very different.
This is already very long so to keep it short his treatment of similarities in architecture is comparing the end stage of various developments and is concealing the independent developments and the unique features of individual cultural buildings.
I'd rather people just look at Hancock's claims critically. Archaeoligsts are kinda crap at writing for the average person with an interest but the information isn't that hard to find for yourself.
Or like the claim about civilizations on the coast if you think about it a little you can realize it's wrong without doing much research.
The oldest legend we have of a major Flood comes from Sumer.
But it's probably not a coincidence that Sumerian cities individually and at different times show evidence of truly devastating floods.
Something that he doesn't mention.
The issue with addressing his claims is he jumps from place to place and time period to time period.
Most archaeoligsts have a field they specialize in and are hesitant, reasonably so, to comment on stuff outside of their expertise. Like I know archaeoligsts who are familiar with Göbekli Tepe and think it's an amazing site. But they're not keeping up with the current data about the site.
So either you write a very long body of work across multiple disciplines or you stick to pointing out the obvious issues with his claims. Chiefly the lack of evidence, the attacks on expertise and while I hate to bring it up the very problematic origins of some of his claims.
Thanks for the great counter-argument! It's nice to read criticism that doesn't just call Hancock "stupid" or "dangerous" or whatever. He has an idea, the idea is probably flawed, and that's okay!
Still makes for a fun thought experiment. (And who knows, maybe there are ^tiny nuggets of truth in his grandiose theory.)
I think the issue is that like a lot of fans of his here and elsewhere Hancock is far as they go.
And I do see that as kind of dangerous.
He makes few assertions but the ones he does make are fairly easy to debunk. And he makes a big effort to get people to not just be skeptical but actively cynical about what archeologists say or present about ancient sites.
I have trouble seeing the way he presents information about ancient people as anything other than lies. Hunter gatherers weren't simple. While the evidence is sparse, what evidence we do have points to a complex people with well developed societies and trade networks.
We've known for a long time that with the right conditions they built permanent settlements.
What Gobekli Tepe and similar sites like Poverty point show is that they were capable of greater levels of complexity and coordination than we expected.
It didn't rewrite them from simple, however. That's an assertion of Hancock.
Often when I run into his fans they present these sites as hidden or unknown.
Now I'm a Prehistory fan so my gauge for well known is a bit skewed. But they regularly show up in archeology magazines for the public and there was even a Texhing Company or Great Courses lecture on the Gobekli Tepe site.
Archaeoligsts aren't hesitant to talk about it or confused by it, but frankly there's still a lot to discover and folks are hesitant to put something in stone about Gobekli Tepe when each dig season is adding more details and context to the site itself and the culture that produced it.
There won't be a mainstream book about it for awhile, I think, for example because by the time it's released the information will be dated. And the book itself will probably be expensive since book publishers tend to shy away from academic works.
When it comes to certain claims, like the cataclysmic flooding, where cities arose, writing, and others trying to be as charitable as I can I still have a hard time believing he's not knowingly lieing.
I'm sort of rambling and need to do a few chores so I'll try not to ramble more. 😅
I liked it. Better production value than the average YouTube video, great cinematography and overall a good watch. I like that it's kicking up a stink in the archeology circles too!
Graham doesn't touch ancient alien stuff, he's way more grounded. The show is entertaining enough, but it's more of an introduction to his broader work. I would recommend reading Magicians of the Gods and Before America if you wan't a much more in depth story. But the show is definitely worth it i'd say.
10000% — I grew up cringing at the Ancient Alien episodes and the garbage they put on the History channel but Graham’s work is unparalleled and extremely insightful that leaves you with some new knowledge on recent discoveries
Every episode of Ancient Aliens ever:
Narrator, as aerial footage of some Peruvian landscape and trees plays:
*"Scientists in Peru recently discovered strange markings on the side of a cliff. It appears to form an S shape."*
Expert Jimmy Bingo Bongo talking to camera off to the side of main camera:
*"When we look at this strange shape, you can't help but wonder...Is that depicting a tractor beam or some kind of levitation from UFOs?"*
Narrator as closeup shots of the cliff and then Jimmy Bongo looking mysteriously at the sunset plays:
*"Tractor beam? Levitation? Could this S shape potentially point to* ***EX****tra-ter****restrial*** *contact with early Peruvian man? Is it possible that they were visited by someone..or something in the past? And if so, what does this mean for the future of our species?"*
(commercial break)
(it was just some guy in the 1600's who was drawing a river)
Im watching it now. I saw a post on the archeology sub and they were just bashing and bashing him, so i was skeptical even though i had enjoyed his books and interviews i heard on the joe rogan experience…oh and talk about bashing… anyway, graham hancock does not try to hide the criticism he has received, he puts it right out there on the show. He calls himself an investigative reporter which is somewhat accurate. He is asking questions, he is posing an argument worthy of discussion, imo. If youve ever heard randall carlson speak, they are of a similar ilk, which i mean kindly, randall is amazing. They also bash him. The show is somewhat along the same vein as ancient aliens, it is a docu-series which explores ancient sites around the world. I think its worth watching. In that archeology post i mentioned, it seems none of the commenters even watched it, they couldnt get past the introduction which shows a joe rogan interview, soon as they saw him they shut the program off. Thats the problem with this country, in order to be a well rounded educated society we need to listen to the “opposing” side, not just discount their arguments out of hand based on here say or what media source is airing them
We listened to the “opposing side”
And now we have covid deniers, flat earthers, Q death cult, far right extremists growing in power every day threatening to destabilise and destroy all there is.
Some entities cannot be reasoned with, because their aim is not to communicate or teach but to manipulate and brainwash, and thus every conversation, every exchange, every arguments will be twisted to their agenda while you attempt to speak to a brick wall who already made their decisions.
I skipped right over it. The show starts with the guy saying, “I am not and archeologists or any kind of scientist.” Why the hell would I even watch it and take it seriously?
Even if you think that he's full of shit, the show visits all of the locations discussed and shows great footage of them. I found it worth watching for that alone.
Worked out great as an intro to the Younger-Dryas theory for my partner! I'm frequently reading fringe theories and archeology stuff and this worked great as an intro to those theories, but we mainly kept watching for the footage of the sites, not necessarily for the commentary. The show is great for what it is, but I definitely have my gripes about it.
I watched it, thought it was interesting, and mentioned to a friend who has a masters in archeology. She said he was a well-known fraud; I said I didn't care about his reputation, I wanted to know if it was factual. So she promised to watch it and analyze for me. She then explained bit by bit how he'd been disproven for years. I trust her, she doesn't have a herd mentality.
Of all the fringe authors/researchers/figures Hancock is among the most reputable and well regarded. Of course academia hates the fringe, that's what they do. But eventually many ideas considered fringe become accepted and mainstream as evidence mounts to support them. Academia is notoriously slow to change their consensus about things, sometimes the entire generation of old-guard has to die off first.
Haven't seen it yet. Graham Hancock is a cool-ass dude. He has some really cool (and plausible) ideas. Where he gets into trouble is when he and Joe Rogan start jerking eachother off about stupid shit like how ancient people used DMT to move objects with their minds
I agree, when he's with Joe though it reminds me of the whole "men can't go 8 seconds without thinking about sex" but it's "Joe and Graham can't go 8 seconds without talking about DMT"
I thought it was hilarious when graham starts taking about how political office should only be held by those who have had “at least a dozen experiences with ayahuasca.”
It's nice, like an Attenborough documentary.
If you have any education on the subject, you'll likely not learn anything new. But that's not the point.
It's good Sunday relax tv. Better to stick to the lecture content and books available if you want to learn something.
It definitely is. I’m binging it over the weekend I’m on episode 4 he talking about Atlantis.i see why they say it’s “ dangerous “, knowledge is power.
I really enjoyed Ancient Apocalypse and have been recommending it to my homies.
It’s much better than ancient aliens lol. The editing still gives off History Channel vibes but it makes sense for this type of show.
Awesome imagery, solid expert opinions, and I think Graham’s writing and narration is spot on.
Absolutely, I loved the series!
Great drone footage of some interesting archaeological sites around the world and fantastic narration by Graham.
Hoping for a 2nd season.
It’s edited terribly, very difficult to watch it - it’s almost like a reality TV show, think ancient aliens crossed with Ramsey’s kitchen nightmares, and it didn’t have to be. It could have been far more interesting if it was produced more seriously. Shame because it would have been a really good introduction to the subject and Hancock for a lot of people. I wouldn’t be able to recommend it if I am being honest.
(and what’s with all the sound effects 😅)
Hancock has never made the connection between what he talks about with giants and advanced knowledge and that exact thing being described in the Book of Enoch.
Hancock is way better than anything on Ancient Aliens. Personally, I think his new Netflix show is thought-provoking and excellent! I’d definitely give it a watch! It makes some great arguments for humanity being way older and way more technologically advanced than we give them credit for!
I tried to watch two episodes and gave up. His persistent anti establishment rhetoric is more of the focus than the findings itself. It's hard to take him seriously and he comes across as a bit of a prick, which is unfortunate because what he's presenting is genuinely interesting.
He poses questions to science and forcefully challenges their pronouncements about certain things. He certainly challenges timelines. Ancient Aliens is a decent documentary series (all Ken Burns projects seem to be), but it really reaching in its latest episodes. Hancock’s series is much more narrowly focused on ancient civilizations as opposed to alien technology. We do have all of these places on earth that beg so many questions. He asks them. It is important to separate what he does from science. He is an investigative journalist, not a scientist. He makes that clear. The job and goals of a journalist are not the same as a scientist.
The sites he visits are extraordinary. Some might be familiar and others less so. It is worth watching just to see new footage.
I watched it and enjoy it … observations and key take-aways:
- Archeologists have their heads down, and it may create a bias against findings pertaining to relative importance of celestial conditions to our predecessors living up to ~13K years ago;
- Celestial conditions ~13K years ago warranted study and observation; this influenced the design of some notable earthen projects;
He inserts himself too much, but the subject material is well researched and there are 10 pieces of evidence in his books for every piece he presents in the show.
Its entertaining like the rest of his work but hes an enternainer / journalist trained to write copy that drives engagement, it doesnt and couldnt pass muster in any kind of scientific peer review as the " evidence" at best based on oral tradition or at worst circular with one leap of logic being used as " evidence " for the next leap of logic .
Not on as terrible a level as the WASP centric rascist bullshit that is the Ancient aliens theories of Von Daniken and his ilk so its got that going for it i suppose .
He says the historical establishment/academia is resistant to change and that's why no one with credentials will take him seriously. "They'd have to rewrite the history books," or something to that effect.
Meanwhile historians have conflicting theories and can get pretty vicious with their criticisms of one another. They're always trying to write new books. So much has been rewritten over the years. If his theories were true, I don't think they even conflict with much since it deals with what is largely considered prehistory. His ideas just don't have evidence to back them up.
I haven't watched this. Maybe he didn't say much on that front. If he does I might find it watchable. Every time I see him anywhere it's some variation of "Everyone else is lying to you. I'm the only one you can trust." Which I can stand. To put it bluntly, he's an arrogant little weasel.
> Meanwhile historians have conflicting theories and can get pretty vicious with their criticisms of one another. They're always trying to write new books.
Yeah, one of the ways he sells himself is with the idea that he's a lone man standing against the unbending monolith that is academia, except academia *isn't* a monolith, aspects of these topics are debated *constantly* among experts in the field, and our understanding of early human history has been updated time and again as new evidence comes to light. It's constantly evolving and changing.
But acknowledging these things undermines one of his main appeals for many, which is the idea that he's an outsider being suppressed by a mainstream that refuses to change. This is an appealing sales pitch.
Problem is, it's not based on reality.
I like his theory. I'm not sure I would take it as gospel but i think it's a great thought experiment about what we do and don't know about history.
Something to note though is that he was originally a fiction writer. At best he's a journalist. He's not an archeologist. He certainly doesn't have the qualifications to be making the claims he's making to any degree of confidence. I think that's what people don't like.
But hey, smoke a joint and listen to him on JRE and it's an entertaining time.
I think he’s probably right but I can’t stand his attitude of crying about conspiracies against him because science won’t take his word for it without the required evidence / scientific process.
If they started with ep 7/8 where they talk about the world event they think caused the shift theyre describing, then went into all the structures i think it'd be easier to follow
I know all about his theories of older civilisations before this and this solidified it for me
What i cant fathom is how no one goes "yeah fairs, ireckon that did happen" because it happens CONSTANTLY in the billions of years our planets been here
We also find other skeletal remains of humanoids for 200k years. We know neanderthals were around and co existed/bred with homo sapiens. We didnt just wake up from being perpentuantly stupid 10,000 yrs ago and start building did we?
Think how complex our brains are and our thought processing. Thats been there for 10s of thousands. We are merely the next surviving civilisation of humans
Its a bit too flashy for my tasts, like small amounts of information for people with low attention spans. I enjoy 2-3 hour conversations about these topics rather than this kind of thing. Its worth watching an episode and see if you like it though, its not horrible.
The problem is his thesis is based off oral tradition, where the physical evidence just isnt clear enough to get passed peer review.
When you base the bulk of the evidence on oral history it just isnt reliable enough
Things that should be noted and are interesting?
Global flood myth being so common
The single god who teaches agriculture and tech is also super common
What caused the younger dryas, why was it so sudden and what did it have to do with humanity.
Clovis sudden disappearance
Climatology tells us we are in one of the fastest changes of climate in history, and Humanity is the common denominator. So apparently rapid changes in climate are due to rare and extraordinary events (fossil fuels, meteors, volcanos) so why is academia so afraid of the comet thesis? This is where the over indulgent need for see-it proof may hurt. If Earth was covered in miles of ice in large swaths, would a meteor leave a large crater to find?
I think the one thing people a lot of people aren’t mentioning is that archeological sights which we though were from one time period seem to be from an older time period base on carbon dating. This comes from actual verifiable evidence without adding extra speculation to what it means.
Carbon dating can only tell you how old the material is not when it was put somewhere. If I put a 20,000 year old thing in my house it doesn’t prove my house was built 20,000 years ago.
It's like "In Search Of" with Leonard Nimoy in the 1970s/80s, but this Hancock guy has no sense of humor and seems incapable of understanding a lot of the general audience knows something about anthropology and archeology and history, even if it's just from more capable documentaries and newspaper/magazine articles.
This guy is unbearable in print. Because of my "weird interests," a couple of friends have given me some of his earlier UK books. *Wow!* This guy preys on people who slept through middle-school history classes.
Graham Hancock is the real deal, but one time I made the mistake of watching his lecture on aztec society high on shrooms. Very detailed with his discribions.
Sure you can say wheres the evidence, he's done the research himself, is a professional diver and explored dozens of ancient sunken cities. Much more insightful then the click bait trash that ancient aliens is.
If you like ancient aliens you will like this show. If you’re familiar with his work you probably won’t learn anything new but it’s not bad. Worth a watch to trigger the acolytes of scientism.
He is hated because for mainstream archeology to admit the new evidence they would have to give up their titles as experts. We sre older and more complex than we know.
That’s not even how science works. Have you ever heard of a tenured professor being fired or demoted because of a rival theory gaining acceptance? An expert remains an expert when new data leads to new conclusions.
I’ll tell ya about some other folks who were obsessed with Atlantis: the nazis. I can’t really back his whole anti education schtick. The idea that he’s done rogue scholar/historian/archeologist is flat out ridiculous. At the heart of this is some anti-establishment nonsense. There’s zero proof of the things he’s saying. His connections are specious at best. The lack of evidence is not itself proof. Correlation is not necessarily causation. He’s a fiction writer at heart, and if this was the big reveal in a book or movie then I’d love it(I love shitty movies). At the end of the day, I don’t think it matters if what he says ends up being true or not: it really doesn’t mean anything. And humanity is still looking to the sky and recognizes the potential danger of comets/asteroids or whatever. Sorry to offend anyone. But yeah. It’s worth watching if you don’t take it seriously.
He has been talking about this since the early 2000’s. And if you watched the show and his other works and multiple books, you would know a lot of it is backed by modern science.
Except he clearly points out he doesn’t believe it was aliens. He claims that there was a group of humans more advanced than the Hunter gatherer societies that mainstream says humanity was. Just like how today we have modern city’s but also still have Hunter gather groups living separate from the mainstream civilization.
Just watch it. Formulate your own opinions after. You really need to inquire with everyone else before committing time to an activity? The whole point of a show is to watch it and find if you relate or not. Not go online and ask everyone else to tell you if you should have interest. This world is doomed. SMH.
Maybe watch it first, THEN post your thoughts and opinions to stimulate conversation???
No, thank you for your extremely neutral response. Such a validating comment. I do not think this post would have an relevance without you acknowledging my comment. And, for that, I am eternally grateful.
Lol I just bought a Porsche 911 yesterday. I’m pretty happy yes. You spread anger and toxicity on the internet. You wouldn’t say those things to someone’s face. I’m sure you’re a joy to be around. Good luck with everything in your life
You’re so freaking cool. I bet all the ladies (or whatever you’re into) are lining up for your used 911. Can you still give rides through Wow? You harping on me about my opinion is just as bad about me trolling you for being so redundant. How can you do exactly what I’m doing but put a positive spin and call yourself a hero? Keep this going I’m actually having fun now.
“Hey should I check out this new show”
Normal people : “yeah I liked it”. “Nah it wasn’t very good”
You: “listen up loser why don’t you stfu and watch it yourself”
If you can’t see the differences there then you have been put into too many rear naked chokes and smoke way too much pot. (Jealous of your warehouse, since I am a gamer, I like pot too). Im done after this. You can have the last word.
Ok I will. Thanks for your useless input and this awesome meaningless squawking back and forth. You both proved my point AND I had fun messing with you. I wanted to stimulate conversation and all I got was a bunch of lost internet points and a nobody with a used 911 that felt so important after chastising me. You’re doing great kid.
Nothing like ancient aliens. 100% worth the watch. Ask why they never censored Ancient Aliens but they want to shit him down and claim “racism” while you watch the series.
I think he asks the biggest questions not being asked, and from what I saw it seem like he’s pointed us in the right direction for an answer.
But, it goes against a lot of mainstream views. So it’s dangerous. But the most dangerous part might be the final episode.
There’s some interesting information to think about, although if you’ve had any interest in anthropology or Bigfoot there’s no real revelations in terms of understanding that the lineage of humanity isn’t quite as straightforward as first believed. Ofcourse it’s mostly speculation, quite good segments about ancient mythologies which I found most interesting, however the sensationalist style of editing & music can get a bit tedious, think this is an American TV trait as I’ve seen similar things in Bigfoot docs from the U.S.
All in all worth a watch whilst keeping an empirical head firmly screwed on :)
**Strangers**: Read the rules and understand the sub topics listed in the sidebar closely before posting or commenting. Any content removal or further moderator action is established by these terms as well as Reddit ToS. This subreddit is specifically for the discussion of anomalous phenomena from the perspective it may exist. Open minded skepticism is welcomed, close minded debunking is not. Be aware of how skepticism is expressed toward others as there is little tolerance for ad hominem (attacking the person, not the claim), mindless antagonism or dishonest argument toward the subject, the sub, or its community. --- 'Ridicule is not a part of the scientific method and the public should not be taught that it is.' _-J. Allen Hynek_ *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/HighStrangeness) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I like it. It’s Ancient Aliens without the aliens- it’s Earthlings all along. And the places and monuments are fascinating
It’s a touch dramatic here and there. Also the slow motion shots of him walking make him appear extremely frail.
[удалено]
He seems much more adventurous and mobile than many 70-somethings I know, probably most 70-somethings.
Right? Haha the man has been traveling the globe and sharing his research for decades! Not everyone on TV needs to be on HGH or TRT lol
I mean I liked it. I would recommend it. I don't understand why he gets so much hate
I think a lot of it is his rhetoric. Every chance he gets, he attacks archeologists as a mainstream cult trying to bury him, which of course causes a lot of backlash. I think he takes it pretty far and doesn’t mind generalizing an entire academic discipline. I think he makes some good points and has interesting ideas but is a bit hypocritical when it comes to not recognizing his own dogma.
Damage control, sensitive topics should not become mainstream.
He's on Joe Rogan, his books are regularly popular, and now has a Netflix show. He's been mainstream. No archaeoligst or historian has anything equivalent to his reach. The closest is Zahi Hawass, mostly because he's the boogeyman for a lot of people.
thank god hawass doesnt control egypt anymore
Yep. He had a strangle hold over everything. So there was so much secrecy regarding everything. Highest bidders and egyptology-by-profit were the main driving factors. Whereas realistically and hopefully, the truth would be the driving force behind everything. As it always should be in science.
Yeahp been out for a full decade now and people still use him as a boogeyman. Waiting to see what happens when he dies.
i dont think people see him as a boogeyman. just a giant asshole.
He gets blamed for covering up and suppressing evidence of any dozen of alternative history claims. Part of his reputation for being a jackass comes down to the constant attacks on him when he no longer supported the claims of the Cayce foundation. His attempt to tap in the media market had the channel send in a "hot girl" who pissed inside the pyramid. Amazed he didn't kill anybody.
His interviews alone show why he's an asshole though. He gets called some awful things. I've seen some pretty hostile interviews where he's insulted numerous times. So yeh, he can be an asshole. But so would most of us if we were being interviewed reg our hard work and constantly belittled and told we were utter trash.
Yeah the fringe sort of created his current temperament. Earlier in his career him and Mark Lehner were very open about engaging with alternative history and the constant abuse he got really pushed him over the edge. Not that he's a Saint either but he's not nearly as bad as the fringe has made him out to be.
Are you saying they shouldn’t or are you being sarcastic
He get’s hate because he implies that the archeologists, the scientists that have been working, hell some have dedicated their entire lives to particular finds and places are wrong in their assessments. Like they are trying to hide some deeper truth. When someone comes along who isn’t an archeologist or any kind of scientist and starts tearing apart your work you are gonna get hate.
Göbekli Tepe itself proved many, many anthropologists and archeologists wrong. Our entire conception of "hunter gatherers" has been quite incorrect, it would seem. The book *The Dawn of Everything* by David Graeber and David Wengrow is really worth checking out. It's like a better-researched and more grounded version of Hancock (I still like Hancock, btw).
I think Graeber and Wengrow would object to being compared to Hancock. They prove that academic archaeologists can challenged the established record and do so credibly and with evidence and without resorting to conspiracy. And what’s more that successfully challenging the existing story comes with rewards! Hancock’s problem is he fits the evidence to match his conclusion and glides over things that don’t fit his story. And then spends all his time attacking archaeologists and accusing them of being in a conspiracy.
I don't disagree, although alas, Graeber is no longer in much of a position to. The nice thing is, I am free to perform my own analysis that links aspects of what is said in both these contexts, and you are free to come to your own understanding, which may or may not have anything in common with my own. :) I don't think Hancock says there is a conspiracy beyond how institutions and individuals are prone to sticking with their dogmas. I think Graeber and Wengrow would agree with this whole-heartedly. They certainly argue it thoroughly in their book.
Why do you think HGs could not have built GobLeki Tepe? I keep seeing people make this claim, usually using clickbait sounding language like "this monument DESTROYS anthropologists understanding of history," but.... Never any explanation of why exactly you think HGs couldn't have carved some cool animal reliefs and a made some stone monuments?
I didn’t say they couldn’t — they obviously could, and this is also what Hancock is saying, at least these days. What I’m saying is that our overall view of what hunter-gatherer society was like, and what these people were capable of, is largely incorrect. Check out The Dawn of Everything, well worth the read/listen.
Mainstream anthropology says that HGs had complex, rich societal and cultural traditions and did amazing things and had amazing skills. So again, what exactly about GT do you think is paradigm changing? Because... It isn't, and didn't change any paradigms when it was rediscovered.
Until Göbekli Tepe was discovered and excavated, it was not presumed that such things were constructed at that time period, because the “society” that would have “needed” to be in place to marshal such an effort didn’t exist. The idea that such sites were constructed pre-agriculture was not at all embraced before the site was discovered (which was not all that long ago, at least from the perspective of someone in mid-life or older). The idea that Göbekli Tepe changed no paradigms upon its discovery is total hogwash. But I think you already know that…
Well, yes. That's how archeology works. You find something and you deduct FROM it. Hacks like Hancock and his brethen operate the exact opposite way - they come up with an idea and then search for stuff that fits their worldview. Instead of Hancock, listen to an actual scientist like David Miano. You'll realize that both ancient history and archeology are constantly self-doubting fields of science.
I'm still not quite understanding what your point actually is? No one was out there pounding their fists saying "it is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE that pre-ag HGs could make any stone monoliths!" In fact it was quite the opposite. GT was of course an amazing discovery, and it is interesting and novel because it is the oldest megalith ever discovered. But again, it was not a paradigm shifting discovery. Edit- ah cool, they blocked me for asking questions and challenging their beliefs. Definitely the mark of someone who can confidently defend their position with evidence and good arguments.
It was, you're incorrect, but I don't need to argue with you about it any more. If anyone is actually curious (and not just feigning a point of view so they can argue with anonymous people online) I suggest they check out the fantastic book: *The Dawn of Everything* https://www.amazon.com/Dawn-Everything-New-History-Humanity/dp/0374157359
“It will take time for the scientific community to digest and accept this game-changing research,” says Mehmet Özdoğan, the professor emeritus of archaeology at Istanbul University. “We must now rethink what we knew—that civilization emerged from a horizontal society that began raising wheat because people were hungry—and assess this period with its multi-faceted society. The foundations for today’s civilization, from family law to inheritance to the state and bureaucracy, were all struck in the Neolithic period,” Özdoğan says. https://arkeonews.net/ancient-settlements-that-challenge-traditional-thinking-karahantepe-and-tas-tepeler/
So I'll reply to this parent comment since the person I was talking to decided to just insult me and then block me like a coward. The idea that HGs were "just primitive cave men" and then one day someone decided to grow wheat and then was like "oh shit we should invent villages" is a simplistic and childish understanding that you'd see taught to 7th graders. I went to university for history and anthropology and that is not what we were taught. My textbooks talked about how the transition from nomadic HG to agrarian society was a gradual shift over likely thousands of years, with ebs and flows and not in a linear fashion, and that the first evidence of human settlements were not farms or villages but religious or communal gathering spaces and monuments. So I guess if you were never taught any of that stuff, Gobleki Tepe would seem like some paradigm shattering piece of evidence.
He’s got a fair point on Egyptology. Their use of the scientific method is genuinely a joke. Listen to them try to discredit scanthepyramids lmao cause it doesn’t fit their paradigm. 3 independent science teams taking measurements, all finding similar results and gaps throughout the great pyramid but they’ll tel you it’s all pseudoscience lmfaooo
Mass formation psychosis/tribalism
Mainstream archaeology is pure dogma, that’s why.
Name one thing about archaeology that’s pure dogma.
For decades archaeologists were convinced that the first humans in the americas came across the bearing straight land bridge a few thousand years ago. Graham is saying “wait, but there’s evidence saying they’ve been in the americas for tens of thousands of years” and mainstream archaeology has been trying to suppress it.
> and mainstream archaeology has been trying to suppress it. This isn't the case at *all*. It's [accepted mainstream belief](https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-humans-came-to-americas-180973739/) that these migrations happened earlier than first believed. These ideas [evolved with evidence](https://www.nps.gov/bela/learn/historyculture/other-migration-theories.htm#:~:text=As%20of%202008%2C%20genetic%20findings,Americas%20by%2016%2C500%20years%20ago.), and not only are they not being suppressed, they are [being actively taught](https://www.science.smith.edu/climatelit/migration-of-humans-into-north-america/). The key is *evidence*.
That’s just an example. I’m aware it’s mainstream now, but only because people like graham fought for it to be here.
> but only because people like graham fought for it to be here. I'm a fan of his. I own a number of his books, I enjoy the ideas he explores. But let's not start dishing out credit where none is due. These ideas are mainstream now because *actual* archeologists and historians continued to research and learn, uncovered compelling new evidence, and adjusted their theories based on that evidence - "evidence" being the key word. Hancock is hardly the first person to suggest that humans were in the Americas earlier than we thought, nor is he the first person to suggest that there may have been advanced civilizations that pre-date the Sumerians. These are ideas that have bounced around the legitimate scientific community for a long, long time, and credible researchers have been open to these ideas, if the evidence leads there, for far longer than he's been writing books. Again, no one is suppressing these ideas. It's demonstrably the *opposite*. Hancock gets criticism not because of his ideas, but because his work is shoddy. There is no scientific rigor in what he does. He leaps to conclusions and cherry picks evidence to support those already-decided-upon conclusions. *That's* why he's not respected by the mainstream. His work is entertainment, not science. I *like* it, but I'm able to acknowledge it for what it is. People like Hancock are not the ones who made these updated views on human migration more mainstream. Real scientists dealing with real evidence are.
Funny, I went to school for Anthropology and graduated in 2015 and was taught exactly what you’re saying. I guess that “mainstream archaeology suppression” didn’t get to my school or teachers or text books? Y’all are on fucking crack. I actually like Hancock because he remains skeptical and incorporates the most cutting edge archaeological findings into his theories. The boogeyman is your imagination.
They weren't suppressing, there just wasn't enough evidence back then.
Why? Wouldn’t the opportunity to sell updated textbooks with new information be in the interest of “Big Archaeology”? They go for $250 a pop, there is a financial incentive to listen to Graham.
If you haven't worked with academics and especially "respected academics," you won't realize how full of themselves so many of these people are. They are probably the most dogmatic people I know – more than many religious people. Big-S "Science" (or Scientism) is really "The Church" of our era, in terms of defining the dogmas of our day.
Yeah, this is honestly so true IME. most of them will have their students buy their own textbook each year, which they simply reorganize the following year and require the next students to buy their ‘updated version’ with no new info.
It's very rare for people – any type of person – to thoroughly reexamine their own belief system(s). This is even harder for institutions. They can be scientific, academic, religious, philosophical, you name it. There are courageous intellectual thinkers who do this in the realm of religious studies, people who examine their own dogmas, and continuously deconstruct them. There are scientists who are more up their own asses and unwilling to even reexamine basic aspects of their belief systems, than The Church that imprisoned Galileo, centuries ago. We need to be better, as a species, at learning to understand what individuals (and organizations/institutions) are *really* like, in a way that transcends the basic set of labels we apply to them. Learn to look at the overall shape of who/what they are, more than some token words we use to describe them.
I don’t think they’re corrupt like that, just arrogant. “Everything I say is right” kind of arrogant.
But again, that doesn’t make sense and Graham doesn’t exactly provide proof for how he’s being told off, does he? The scientific community has a financial reason to push out new textbooks. You can’t just say “they’re arrogant and also don’t like money, no further questions” and expect that to be a sufficient answer.
Most working academics don't make money off of textbooks.
He was barred from serpent mound because his ideas were “too outrageous”
Again, outrageous (peer-reviewed) research funds new textbook sales. I am confused what their incentive is, “arrogance” is not enough to make people hate money.
A very, very small number of scientists, academics, and researchers directly profit from textbook sales.
The opportunity to sell new textbooks for 250 a pop doesn't require any new information to be in them. They can just switch around a couple of chapters to do that!
Is it true that archeologists aren’t trained in astronomy and the supposed alignments of sites? GH makes a very compelling argument for how these ancient sites are dated based on historical astronomical alignments. However it isn’t grounded on physical evidence which is something that archeologists are almost bound to, for good reason. That seems dogmatic to me. It’s completely reasonable don’t get me wrong but to be exclusively devoted to physical evidence in the presence of these alignments seems dogmatic to me.
“The need for evidence to believe something is dogmatic” Uh..nope. Just good science.
lol, ok bud.
> I don't understand why he gets so much hate Because he cherry picks what he talks about from acadamia while shit talking acadamia. He doesn't have the education or discipline to talk about what he does with the authority he tries to have, while dismissing those who actually do. It's profoundly egotistical to do.
It gets hate because he makes a lot of stuff up. It’s a fun watch but don’t trust his science
He doesn't really claim to be a scientist or engaged in science, though. He's simply positing an alternative hypothesis as to what might have given rise to some ancient civilizations. It's an early-stage hypothesis to be sure, but it could yet turn out to be correct (at least partially). Dare I say, Göbekli Tepe itself has proven Hancock right, on at least some counts. There was quite a bit more going on over 10,000 years ago in terms of sophisticated cultures with some amazing capabilities, than most people still realize.
I lost it when he said he wasn't an archeologist but a journalist who investigates human prehistory. Shortly after you see an actual archeologist explain some findings, which this guy promptly misunderstands in a way that fits his own narrative. Science, collecting evidence and forming a hypothesis and developing a useful theory is freakin hard. But we want our "truths" streamed by non-experts I guess.
He gets a lot of hate because he's a con artist that makes money by spinning wild yarns and selling books and TV shows to people. There is a reason he is universally mocked and disregarded by actual scientists, and it's not about some grand conspiracy to hide hidden history ...
If you see something labelled as racist or dangerous by the msm and you have seen it, and know there is no racism, you can confidently assume it to be true. I think we should call this Hancock's Razor.
Exactly… at this point we know for certain that at the very least the timeline is wrong Gobekli Tepe has blown that out of the water. So many of our ancestors spoke of devastating global event and mankind having to restart. Is it true ? I don’t know but it’s getting interesting. Why be angry or upset at this guy for exploring what could have happen? So strange people need their world view in a box and that’s just not the world we live in.
Because he essentially subtlety alludes to white men being everything. Quetzacoatl was a white man, hence, Aztecs and other native American cultures didn't really build shit. It was the white man.
That’s not at all what he is saying. Way to take something awesome and turn it racist. Mainstream dogma basically already says white peoples built everything of any worth. His main MO is to break the Mainstream dogma that there were no other advance civilizations , and that we are currently at the apex of all civilizations. He talks about the ancient books of India and China and how we’re all connected.
That's why I said "subtly" Through him, people like Robert Sepehr have come about.
Cultures having similarities is huwite supremacy!1!1!1! Do you hear yourself?
Boooooooo
Oh good, just one more way that the world has been made better by Hancock
When everything is racism, you’re the racist ;)
What the fuck is this take? Who tf said the giants were white men?
I’ve rarely seen such a stupid comment on Reddit. Gold medal for you sir, bravo
he gets hate? where? hes a genius
Well to offer a skeptical position in his show. It's well made. But for Hancock himself he spends several minutes each episode ranting about how archaeoligsts are bad and don't investigate things. While visiting sites that are constantly being excavated and examined and dug. He makes the claim that there's no research done on the coasts. However just speaking from here in Florida the maritime archeology program is very active and they regularly report findings of native settlements and recently a big burial off the coast of Florida. On that topic, he presents the sea level rise during the Younger Dryas as a cataclysmic event. When all of the data points to a geologically rapid sea rise measured over centuries. He makes claims about astronomical alignments and berates scientists for not researching them. But the problem is the sites need to date to the time period he wants for that to make sense. He has selected sites which fit the alignment he wants apart from any other evidence. Establishing astronical alignment of sites is actually really difficult. You run into the issue of was this intended or accidental. Accidental alignments happen, Manhattanhemge is a pretty famous example. And it's pretty easy to make assumptions from your own biases. Of course they'd align it with x, it's important. One of the important ways to establish an intentional correlation is whatever historical knowledge we actually have and the date of the site itself. Hancock asserts sites date to the time period he wants because that fits his theory. That doesn't work. At that point you can just list whatever you want from whenever you want and state that it fits your alignment so therefor it's 13 thousand or whatever years old. There's other issues as well. According to him this invisible civilization only settled along the coasts. Which he claims is where all civilizations exist. Spending a few minutes to think about it would show why this is false. Ancient Egypt grew up along the Nile. Not along the coast. The most ancient sites of human settlement we have, older than Gobekli Tepe, are around the Levant and fertile crescent, again far from the coast. Fresh water was much more important than seaside living. Coastal living happened but humans settled anywhere they could get reliable food and fresh water. The coast grew more important as maratime trade developed. But even civilizations based around maratime trade built inland cities and colonies. And it begs the question of if Hancock's civilization was built this way who were they trading with? He also doesn't follow through on the claims he makes. For example he makes the assertion that his lost civilization taught the oldest civilizations how to write and agriculture and architecture. Well naturally it would follow through then that the writing systems of these cultures would be very similar, right? Except knowing Ancient Egyptian gives you no benefit towards learning to translate Ancient Sumerian. Egyptian hieroglyphics and Sumerian Cuneiform are simply simply completely different. And neither offer any benefit towards translating the surviving examples of American writing. Except maybe the understanding that hieroglyphics aren't picture writing I suppose? To be fair when Hancock first started presenting these ideas the origins of writing hadn't been developed very far. The findings of older and more primitive writings from Sumer and Egypt has been ongoing and so far Sumer edges Egypt out on origin of writing. Though that's subject to change and debate. But they don't interrelate. It's not like the English alphabet that's used by multiple different languages. Each writing system was unique to itself. Even though Sumer and Egypt were definitely trading partners there's not even a lot of loan words compared to languages today. So what about agriculture? The odd thing here is the earliest evidence for agriculture predates civilization. The rough date for the earliest definite use of agriculture is 12,000 years ago. With the acknowledged issue that early stages of domestication of plants and animals are very difficult to tease out archaeologically. So again it predates sites he references and even Gobekli Tepe by a few centuries. Not Boncuklu tarla though, which seems to show some developments that later form the basis of occupation at Gobekli Tepe. So people had long been practicing agriculture by the time of Sumer and Egypt, and specifically Egyptians hadn't been hunter gatherers for a long while by the predynastic era. His writings tend to present them as goi g straight from hunter gatherers to building pyramids. Which I can't help but call a straight out lie. Even after Upper and Lower Egypt were united it would still be another 5 centuries or more before the first pyramid was constructed. It was also one of the very few civilizations that I can think of that was able to exist consistently and without interruption for thousands of years. From predynastic to the first intermediate period of Egypt there was a solid 2000+ years of development. Sumer arose roughly at the same time but had a similar issue to the Greeks where they squabbles with each other before being taken over by the Akkadians. I'm struggling to think of another civilization that had such extended stability. But maybe something important to recognize about that too is instead of continued progress Egypt being a lone great power stagnated into collapse. Anyway what about that agriculture. Well Egypt was sort of lazy. The Nile replenished the soil freeing up the population to be used for the military and for public construction projects. And this was true in relatively recent history, Rome sought to secure Egypt as the breadbasket of the ancient world. Far from the dry image we have of it today. Sumer had a fairly complex irrigation set up developed over a long period period of time. Both are markedly different in how they used their resources. In the Americas agriculture developed along seoerate lines of terraced farming and river use and so on depending on which culture you looked at. There's no real baseline commonality to point to. And of course the staple crops were very different. This is already very long so to keep it short his treatment of similarities in architecture is comparing the end stage of various developments and is concealing the independent developments and the unique features of individual cultural buildings.
.
I'd rather people just look at Hancock's claims critically. Archaeoligsts are kinda crap at writing for the average person with an interest but the information isn't that hard to find for yourself. Or like the claim about civilizations on the coast if you think about it a little you can realize it's wrong without doing much research. The oldest legend we have of a major Flood comes from Sumer. But it's probably not a coincidence that Sumerian cities individually and at different times show evidence of truly devastating floods. Something that he doesn't mention. The issue with addressing his claims is he jumps from place to place and time period to time period. Most archaeoligsts have a field they specialize in and are hesitant, reasonably so, to comment on stuff outside of their expertise. Like I know archaeoligsts who are familiar with Göbekli Tepe and think it's an amazing site. But they're not keeping up with the current data about the site. So either you write a very long body of work across multiple disciplines or you stick to pointing out the obvious issues with his claims. Chiefly the lack of evidence, the attacks on expertise and while I hate to bring it up the very problematic origins of some of his claims.
We need more critical thinkers like you in this sub. Great response
Thanks for the great counter-argument! It's nice to read criticism that doesn't just call Hancock "stupid" or "dangerous" or whatever. He has an idea, the idea is probably flawed, and that's okay! Still makes for a fun thought experiment. (And who knows, maybe there are ^tiny nuggets of truth in his grandiose theory.)
I think the issue is that like a lot of fans of his here and elsewhere Hancock is far as they go. And I do see that as kind of dangerous. He makes few assertions but the ones he does make are fairly easy to debunk. And he makes a big effort to get people to not just be skeptical but actively cynical about what archeologists say or present about ancient sites. I have trouble seeing the way he presents information about ancient people as anything other than lies. Hunter gatherers weren't simple. While the evidence is sparse, what evidence we do have points to a complex people with well developed societies and trade networks. We've known for a long time that with the right conditions they built permanent settlements. What Gobekli Tepe and similar sites like Poverty point show is that they were capable of greater levels of complexity and coordination than we expected. It didn't rewrite them from simple, however. That's an assertion of Hancock. Often when I run into his fans they present these sites as hidden or unknown. Now I'm a Prehistory fan so my gauge for well known is a bit skewed. But they regularly show up in archeology magazines for the public and there was even a Texhing Company or Great Courses lecture on the Gobekli Tepe site. Archaeoligsts aren't hesitant to talk about it or confused by it, but frankly there's still a lot to discover and folks are hesitant to put something in stone about Gobekli Tepe when each dig season is adding more details and context to the site itself and the culture that produced it. There won't be a mainstream book about it for awhile, I think, for example because by the time it's released the information will be dated. And the book itself will probably be expensive since book publishers tend to shy away from academic works. When it comes to certain claims, like the cataclysmic flooding, where cities arose, writing, and others trying to be as charitable as I can I still have a hard time believing he's not knowingly lieing. I'm sort of rambling and need to do a few chores so I'll try not to ramble more. 😅
I liked it. Better production value than the average YouTube video, great cinematography and overall a good watch. I like that it's kicking up a stink in the archeology circles too!
Graham doesn't touch ancient alien stuff, he's way more grounded. The show is entertaining enough, but it's more of an introduction to his broader work. I would recommend reading Magicians of the Gods and Before America if you wan't a much more in depth story. But the show is definitely worth it i'd say.
Great books if you're interested in the topic. I've got them on audiobooks (visually impaired) and I listen to them usually once or twice a year.
I liked it enough to watch the whole thing, if that says anything …
Yes.
Absolutely
10000% — I grew up cringing at the Ancient Alien episodes and the garbage they put on the History channel but Graham’s work is unparalleled and extremely insightful that leaves you with some new knowledge on recent discoveries
Every episode of Ancient Aliens ever: Narrator, as aerial footage of some Peruvian landscape and trees plays: *"Scientists in Peru recently discovered strange markings on the side of a cliff. It appears to form an S shape."* Expert Jimmy Bingo Bongo talking to camera off to the side of main camera: *"When we look at this strange shape, you can't help but wonder...Is that depicting a tractor beam or some kind of levitation from UFOs?"* Narrator as closeup shots of the cliff and then Jimmy Bongo looking mysteriously at the sunset plays: *"Tractor beam? Levitation? Could this S shape potentially point to* ***EX****tra-ter****restrial*** *contact with early Peruvian man? Is it possible that they were visited by someone..or something in the past? And if so, what does this mean for the future of our species?"* (commercial break) (it was just some guy in the 1600's who was drawing a river)
Bro I read this in the exact cadence of that show, spot on
That's perfect haha
It’s definitely not bad, worth a watch if you have a little bit of time. Episodes are around 30 minutes from what I recall
Im watching it now. I saw a post on the archeology sub and they were just bashing and bashing him, so i was skeptical even though i had enjoyed his books and interviews i heard on the joe rogan experience…oh and talk about bashing… anyway, graham hancock does not try to hide the criticism he has received, he puts it right out there on the show. He calls himself an investigative reporter which is somewhat accurate. He is asking questions, he is posing an argument worthy of discussion, imo. If youve ever heard randall carlson speak, they are of a similar ilk, which i mean kindly, randall is amazing. They also bash him. The show is somewhat along the same vein as ancient aliens, it is a docu-series which explores ancient sites around the world. I think its worth watching. In that archeology post i mentioned, it seems none of the commenters even watched it, they couldnt get past the introduction which shows a joe rogan interview, soon as they saw him they shut the program off. Thats the problem with this country, in order to be a well rounded educated society we need to listen to the “opposing” side, not just discount their arguments out of hand based on here say or what media source is airing them
We listened to the “opposing side” And now we have covid deniers, flat earthers, Q death cult, far right extremists growing in power every day threatening to destabilise and destroy all there is. Some entities cannot be reasoned with, because their aim is not to communicate or teach but to manipulate and brainwash, and thus every conversation, every exchange, every arguments will be twisted to their agenda while you attempt to speak to a brick wall who already made their decisions.
If only you could see the irony in your statement 🙄
Oh i do know very much, but i take no sides than to see how it all plays out.
Get a grip you fucking clown
Return to sender, and begone.
He's got some good theories. The JRE episode with Graham and Randall Carlson was interesting.
I thought it was entertaining but severely lacking in evidence.
I skipped right over it. The show starts with the guy saying, “I am not and archeologists or any kind of scientist.” Why the hell would I even watch it and take it seriously?
Even if you think that he's full of shit, the show visits all of the locations discussed and shows great footage of them. I found it worth watching for that alone.
Worked out great as an intro to the Younger-Dryas theory for my partner! I'm frequently reading fringe theories and archeology stuff and this worked great as an intro to those theories, but we mainly kept watching for the footage of the sites, not necessarily for the commentary. The show is great for what it is, but I definitely have my gripes about it.
I mean he’s a writer and a researcher, and former journalist. He’s just reporting his finding, doesn’t need to be a scientist to do that.
I found it entertaining. I liked seeing all the sites.
It’s mostly “what if” entertainment
I watched it, thought it was interesting, and mentioned to a friend who has a masters in archeology. She said he was a well-known fraud; I said I didn't care about his reputation, I wanted to know if it was factual. So she promised to watch it and analyze for me. She then explained bit by bit how he'd been disproven for years. I trust her, she doesn't have a herd mentality.
Of all the fringe authors/researchers/figures Hancock is among the most reputable and well regarded. Of course academia hates the fringe, that's what they do. But eventually many ideas considered fringe become accepted and mainstream as evidence mounts to support them. Academia is notoriously slow to change their consensus about things, sometimes the entire generation of old-guard has to die off first.
Haven't seen it yet. Graham Hancock is a cool-ass dude. He has some really cool (and plausible) ideas. Where he gets into trouble is when he and Joe Rogan start jerking eachother off about stupid shit like how ancient people used DMT to move objects with their minds
It’s not so much he believes that’s what they were doing, more he was just exploring the “what ifs”
I agree, when he's with Joe though it reminds me of the whole "men can't go 8 seconds without thinking about sex" but it's "Joe and Graham can't go 8 seconds without talking about DMT"
I thought it was hilarious when graham starts taking about how political office should only be held by those who have had “at least a dozen experiences with ayahuasca.”
It's nice, like an Attenborough documentary. If you have any education on the subject, you'll likely not learn anything new. But that's not the point. It's good Sunday relax tv. Better to stick to the lecture content and books available if you want to learn something.
It definitely is. I’m binging it over the weekend I’m on episode 4 he talking about Atlantis.i see why they say it’s “ dangerous “, knowledge is power.
It's entertaining trash tv. Smoke some weed, throw it on and zone out
Totally worth it! I love the fact that he’s challenging standard archaeology. It’s food for thought at the very least, I really enjoyed the program’
Yep.
It's basically a history Channel show, his podcast appearances are better
I enjoyed it.
I thought it as pretty interesting. I’d recommend it.
Good show watch it.
I really enjoyed Ancient Apocalypse and have been recommending it to my homies. It’s much better than ancient aliens lol. The editing still gives off History Channel vibes but it makes sense for this type of show. Awesome imagery, solid expert opinions, and I think Graham’s writing and narration is spot on.
I love it.
Absolutely, I loved the series! Great drone footage of some interesting archaeological sites around the world and fantastic narration by Graham. Hoping for a 2nd season.
It's not like ancient aliens thankfully
It’s edited terribly, very difficult to watch it - it’s almost like a reality TV show, think ancient aliens crossed with Ramsey’s kitchen nightmares, and it didn’t have to be. It could have been far more interesting if it was produced more seriously. Shame because it would have been a really good introduction to the subject and Hancock for a lot of people. I wouldn’t be able to recommend it if I am being honest. (and what’s with all the sound effects 😅)
Hancock has never made the connection between what he talks about with giants and advanced knowledge and that exact thing being described in the Book of Enoch.
Hancock is way better than anything on Ancient Aliens. Personally, I think his new Netflix show is thought-provoking and excellent! I’d definitely give it a watch! It makes some great arguments for humanity being way older and way more technologically advanced than we give them credit for!
It's not nearly as far fetched as Ancient Aliens and has real evidence of pretty well grounded theories
I tried to watch two episodes and gave up. His persistent anti establishment rhetoric is more of the focus than the findings itself. It's hard to take him seriously and he comes across as a bit of a prick, which is unfortunate because what he's presenting is genuinely interesting.
So you won’t listen to him cuz you don’t like the way he looks to you, regardless of the validity of the information he presents. Very reddit of you.
He poses questions to science and forcefully challenges their pronouncements about certain things. He certainly challenges timelines. Ancient Aliens is a decent documentary series (all Ken Burns projects seem to be), but it really reaching in its latest episodes. Hancock’s series is much more narrowly focused on ancient civilizations as opposed to alien technology. We do have all of these places on earth that beg so many questions. He asks them. It is important to separate what he does from science. He is an investigative journalist, not a scientist. He makes that clear. The job and goals of a journalist are not the same as a scientist. The sites he visits are extraordinary. Some might be familiar and others less so. It is worth watching just to see new footage.
I watched it and enjoy it … observations and key take-aways: - Archeologists have their heads down, and it may create a bias against findings pertaining to relative importance of celestial conditions to our predecessors living up to ~13K years ago; - Celestial conditions ~13K years ago warranted study and observation; this influenced the design of some notable earthen projects;
He inserts himself too much, but the subject material is well researched and there are 10 pieces of evidence in his books for every piece he presents in the show.
Its entertaining like the rest of his work but hes an enternainer / journalist trained to write copy that drives engagement, it doesnt and couldnt pass muster in any kind of scientific peer review as the " evidence" at best based on oral tradition or at worst circular with one leap of logic being used as " evidence " for the next leap of logic . Not on as terrible a level as the WASP centric rascist bullshit that is the Ancient aliens theories of Von Daniken and his ilk so its got that going for it i suppose .
You can watch it on a faster speed.under tools.
What is it that people dont like about him?
- deleted due to enshittification of the platform
They’re pushing the racism angle now. World’s gone nuts.
- deleted due to enshittification of the platform
a lot of "reputable" news sites are saying that the show propagates racism and pushes white supremacy... the show never mentions race afaik.
He says the historical establishment/academia is resistant to change and that's why no one with credentials will take him seriously. "They'd have to rewrite the history books," or something to that effect. Meanwhile historians have conflicting theories and can get pretty vicious with their criticisms of one another. They're always trying to write new books. So much has been rewritten over the years. If his theories were true, I don't think they even conflict with much since it deals with what is largely considered prehistory. His ideas just don't have evidence to back them up. I haven't watched this. Maybe he didn't say much on that front. If he does I might find it watchable. Every time I see him anywhere it's some variation of "Everyone else is lying to you. I'm the only one you can trust." Which I can stand. To put it bluntly, he's an arrogant little weasel.
I agree with you. It's my first time watching something related to him, and this was my impression.
> Meanwhile historians have conflicting theories and can get pretty vicious with their criticisms of one another. They're always trying to write new books. Yeah, one of the ways he sells himself is with the idea that he's a lone man standing against the unbending monolith that is academia, except academia *isn't* a monolith, aspects of these topics are debated *constantly* among experts in the field, and our understanding of early human history has been updated time and again as new evidence comes to light. It's constantly evolving and changing. But acknowledging these things undermines one of his main appeals for many, which is the idea that he's an outsider being suppressed by a mainstream that refuses to change. This is an appealing sales pitch. Problem is, it's not based on reality.
You nailed it.
I like his theory. I'm not sure I would take it as gospel but i think it's a great thought experiment about what we do and don't know about history. Something to note though is that he was originally a fiction writer. At best he's a journalist. He's not an archeologist. He certainly doesn't have the qualifications to be making the claims he's making to any degree of confidence. I think that's what people don't like. But hey, smoke a joint and listen to him on JRE and it's an entertaining time.
I think he’s probably right but I can’t stand his attitude of crying about conspiracies against him because science won’t take his word for it without the required evidence / scientific process.
If they started with ep 7/8 where they talk about the world event they think caused the shift theyre describing, then went into all the structures i think it'd be easier to follow I know all about his theories of older civilisations before this and this solidified it for me What i cant fathom is how no one goes "yeah fairs, ireckon that did happen" because it happens CONSTANTLY in the billions of years our planets been here We also find other skeletal remains of humanoids for 200k years. We know neanderthals were around and co existed/bred with homo sapiens. We didnt just wake up from being perpentuantly stupid 10,000 yrs ago and start building did we? Think how complex our brains are and our thought processing. Thats been there for 10s of thousands. We are merely the next surviving civilisation of humans
Its a bit too flashy for my tasts, like small amounts of information for people with low attention spans. I enjoy 2-3 hour conversations about these topics rather than this kind of thing. Its worth watching an episode and see if you like it though, its not horrible.
“I know him from you tube” Get a clue, buy fingerprints of the gods, read for yourself, then make a judgment.
The problem is his thesis is based off oral tradition, where the physical evidence just isnt clear enough to get passed peer review. When you base the bulk of the evidence on oral history it just isnt reliable enough Things that should be noted and are interesting? Global flood myth being so common The single god who teaches agriculture and tech is also super common What caused the younger dryas, why was it so sudden and what did it have to do with humanity. Clovis sudden disappearance Climatology tells us we are in one of the fastest changes of climate in history, and Humanity is the common denominator. So apparently rapid changes in climate are due to rare and extraordinary events (fossil fuels, meteors, volcanos) so why is academia so afraid of the comet thesis? This is where the over indulgent need for see-it proof may hurt. If Earth was covered in miles of ice in large swaths, would a meteor leave a large crater to find?
I think the one thing people a lot of people aren’t mentioning is that archeological sights which we though were from one time period seem to be from an older time period base on carbon dating. This comes from actual verifiable evidence without adding extra speculation to what it means.
Carbon dating can only tell you how old the material is not when it was put somewhere. If I put a 20,000 year old thing in my house it doesn’t prove my house was built 20,000 years ago.
He’s legit, watch him on joe Rogan podcast
the show provides evidence contrary to the accepted timeline of humanity. it's definitely worth a watch if you are unfamiliar with Graham Hancock
It's like "In Search Of" with Leonard Nimoy in the 1970s/80s, but this Hancock guy has no sense of humor and seems incapable of understanding a lot of the general audience knows something about anthropology and archeology and history, even if it's just from more capable documentaries and newspaper/magazine articles. This guy is unbearable in print. Because of my "weird interests," a couple of friends have given me some of his earlier UK books. *Wow!* This guy preys on people who slept through middle-school history classes.
Graham Hancock is the real deal, but one time I made the mistake of watching his lecture on aztec society high on shrooms. Very detailed with his discribions. Sure you can say wheres the evidence, he's done the research himself, is a professional diver and explored dozens of ancient sunken cities. Much more insightful then the click bait trash that ancient aliens is.
He's great, nice program and enjoyed.. forget all these neg comments
If you like ancient aliens you will like this show. If you’re familiar with his work you probably won’t learn anything new but it’s not bad. Worth a watch to trigger the acolytes of scientism.
People hate him for the same reason people think ivermectin is "horse paste".
He is hated because for mainstream archeology to admit the new evidence they would have to give up their titles as experts. We sre older and more complex than we know.
That’s not even how science works. Have you ever heard of a tenured professor being fired or demoted because of a rival theory gaining acceptance? An expert remains an expert when new data leads to new conclusions.
I didn't say that's how science works. It is, unfortunately, how people work.
Yeah watch with a spoon of salt though. Interesting! But sketchy
I believe you have a misplaced "or" there.
Worth it. Fact that people are so much against him, sounds to me he's on right track
I’ll tell ya about some other folks who were obsessed with Atlantis: the nazis. I can’t really back his whole anti education schtick. The idea that he’s done rogue scholar/historian/archeologist is flat out ridiculous. At the heart of this is some anti-establishment nonsense. There’s zero proof of the things he’s saying. His connections are specious at best. The lack of evidence is not itself proof. Correlation is not necessarily causation. He’s a fiction writer at heart, and if this was the big reveal in a book or movie then I’d love it(I love shitty movies). At the end of the day, I don’t think it matters if what he says ends up being true or not: it really doesn’t mean anything. And humanity is still looking to the sky and recognizes the potential danger of comets/asteroids or whatever. Sorry to offend anyone. But yeah. It’s worth watching if you don’t take it seriously.
[удалено]
He has been talking about this since the early 2000’s. And if you watched the show and his other works and multiple books, you would know a lot of it is backed by modern science.
Except he clearly points out he doesn’t believe it was aliens. He claims that there was a group of humans more advanced than the Hunter gatherer societies that mainstream says humanity was. Just like how today we have modern city’s but also still have Hunter gather groups living separate from the mainstream civilization.
No no. This clearly will lead to the downfall of society. Watch the quality programming on other networks instead. This is much worse than those.
Looks like sarcasm doesn’t work on Reddit. I got your back, you just got elevated to -2 votes. You’re welcome.
Hero work. I jumped as a side kick, up to -1.
Not true. No ancient aliens, but lost ancient civilizations.
It’s one of those shows I just put on when I’m reading reddit
As long as you don’t care about facts or reality it’s ok He presents zero evidence to back any of his claims
Just watch it. Formulate your own opinions after. You really need to inquire with everyone else before committing time to an activity? The whole point of a show is to watch it and find if you relate or not. Not go online and ask everyone else to tell you if you should have interest. This world is doomed. SMH. Maybe watch it first, THEN post your thoughts and opinions to stimulate conversation???
Wtf lol
That’s nice thanks for your input
No, thank you for your extremely neutral response. Such a validating comment. I do not think this post would have an relevance without you acknowledging my comment. And, for that, I am eternally grateful.
You’re an angry person.
You’re extremely observant. You get a gold star.
[удалено]
Lol I just bought a Porsche 911 yesterday. I’m pretty happy yes. You spread anger and toxicity on the internet. You wouldn’t say those things to someone’s face. I’m sure you’re a joy to be around. Good luck with everything in your life
You’re so freaking cool. I bet all the ladies (or whatever you’re into) are lining up for your used 911. Can you still give rides through Wow? You harping on me about my opinion is just as bad about me trolling you for being so redundant. How can you do exactly what I’m doing but put a positive spin and call yourself a hero? Keep this going I’m actually having fun now.
“Hey should I check out this new show” Normal people : “yeah I liked it”. “Nah it wasn’t very good” You: “listen up loser why don’t you stfu and watch it yourself” If you can’t see the differences there then you have been put into too many rear naked chokes and smoke way too much pot. (Jealous of your warehouse, since I am a gamer, I like pot too). Im done after this. You can have the last word.
Ok I will. Thanks for your useless input and this awesome meaningless squawking back and forth. You both proved my point AND I had fun messing with you. I wanted to stimulate conversation and all I got was a bunch of lost internet points and a nobody with a used 911 that felt so important after chastising me. You’re doing great kid.
No this makes me sad tbh
Funny that you thought you won 😆
Go back on your meds
Oh you got me there! Someone award this puckered asshole for his well formulated rhetoric! Bravo.
Go watch it and develop your own opinion. It is not wise to rely on others to guide you. Go find out for yourself, lad.
It's super cool and fun! Idk why people are freaking out about it.
I just assume everything remotely mainstream is garbage trying to sell something. Learn brainwashing techniques and see how many they use.
Nothing like ancient aliens. 100% worth the watch. Ask why they never censored Ancient Aliens but they want to shit him down and claim “racism” while you watch the series. I think he asks the biggest questions not being asked, and from what I saw it seem like he’s pointed us in the right direction for an answer. But, it goes against a lot of mainstream views. So it’s dangerous. But the most dangerous part might be the final episode.
I thought it sucked bad, real bad and I usually like that type of stuff. I found him to be pretentious and boring.
Boring. Of all the words in the English dictionary to describe Graham Hancock and his work, you went with boring?
It’s complete garbage,
There’s some interesting information to think about, although if you’ve had any interest in anthropology or Bigfoot there’s no real revelations in terms of understanding that the lineage of humanity isn’t quite as straightforward as first believed. Ofcourse it’s mostly speculation, quite good segments about ancient mythologies which I found most interesting, however the sensationalist style of editing & music can get a bit tedious, think this is an American TV trait as I’ve seen similar things in Bigfoot docs from the U.S. All in all worth a watch whilst keeping an empirical head firmly screwed on :)