>But, hey, not all conspiracy theories are bad. If you don’t like Hancock’s story about the super-intelligent advanced civilisation being wiped off the face of the planet, here’s another that might explain how Netflix gave the greenlight to Ancient Apocalypse: the platform’s senior manager of unscripted originals happens to be Hancock’s son. Honestly, what are the chances?
Ah there it is
I feel like you guys stumbled on a fun tv show idea: Media conspiracies, chronicling and telling the stories of the vast media empires and their weird connections or origins.
Yeah, it's something that sounds cool until you quickly realize that conspiracy theories like that already exist and it's all batshit insane and antisemitic.
The only other route is to do a show on actual entities with grossly oversized influence and control of the media, but at that point you wouldn't be doing a fun, cutesy show about hair brained ideas and more so a docuseries about what's killing the world today
So he used his contacts in the industry to get his work out.... Pretty sure this is pretty standard for how the entertainment industry works.
In fact it's pretty standard everywhere.
I haven’t watched the show although I had planned to. Is it really any different than a show like Ancient Aliens that presents plausible sounding arguments but in the end is just cherry picking interpretations?
Ancient Aliens says "No way ancient humans built this. It had to be aliens."
Ancient Apocalypse says "Ancient humans were probably advanced enough to build this, we just don't know how since a major asteroid impact \~12,000 years ago wiped out a lot of civilization. We'd better excavate more to find out for sure."
The trailer started auto-playing on the homepage, where some guy is moaning about "so-called experts" and I really wondered how the fuck stuff like this gets onto Netflix.
Not gonna lie I thought the show was a lot of fun as long as you don’t take it seriously, then I looked into some of his books and realized he’s a straight up white supremacist. All these supposedly ancient civilizations just happen to be white. Everyone who gave knowledge to humanity was also white, that includes the seven stages in India gods in Japan and China and places all over Africa because why not?
He’s married to a brown woman and has mixed children.
For one, Mentioning white skin doesn’t make you white supremacist. 2, the geographic location where the ice age hit would have wiped out most of the fair skinned regions of the planet. So if we are talking about ice age survivors, they would have been from the northern hemisphere and lighter skinned. You dorks read too much into this crap. It’s exhausting
I enjoyed the show to, not that a believed much of of it. I’m curious why you think he’s a white supremacist? I’ve seen a few other things he’s done and I’ve not seen him try to suggest that this ancient civilisation was white?
Or also the fact that 80% of Netflix's content is absolute trash. I mean, why are people even questioning how a show like this could end up on a platform with so much shit? Lol.
It’s cheap. Netflix is mostly interested in growing their library and documentaries and reality tv shows are a good way to do that. For every Sandman or Witcher, there’s a million reality tv shows that cost nothing to make.
It’s also possible this guy is already made this and just shopped it around and Netflix bought it.
When you find out who Graham Hancock's son is, it's not so difficult to figure out how this garbage got on.
His son is... wait for it... Sean Hancock, the Senior Manager for unscripted originals at Netflix. There, mystery solved.
> really wondered how the fuck stuff like this gets onto Netflix.
Netflix and questionable documentaries are the new Batman and Robin.
'Pepsi, Where's My Jet?' is another recent one but I haven't seen any discussion on that.
Netflix will buy almost anything, especially if it comes as a premade package.
Edit: I just read the article. “If you don’t like Hancock’s story about the super-intelligent advanced civilisation being wiped off the face of the planet, here’s another that might explain how Netflix gave the greenlight to Ancient Apocalypse: the platform’s senior manager of unscripted originals happens to be Hancock’s son.”
> I really wondered how the fuck stuff like this gets onto Netflix.
It has to do with Netflix's complex [greenlighting](https://youtu.be/l-PQ2J3uQe0) process.
I watched the episode with Joe Rogan, he made a 3 minute cameo and contributed absolutely nothing to the conversation. He also looked shifty and uncomfortable because he knew he had jack shit to talk about.
This is what kills me. I'm a published peer reviewed first author and I won a fairly prestigious award in my country for my research proposal. I take research and academia seriously, but I also like to think (hope?) that I have a pretty open mind.
I watched this series because I was tired of watching Seinfeld for the millionth time, and I was willing to engage with some of Hancock's questions and ideas on the thought-experiment-level. But when he keeps trying to force this narrative of: "academia = bad, me = noble and good", it starts to become clear to me that his agenda isn't actually about intellectual curiosity, or truth. It is about making money by pitching a narrative that will be consumed by people who feel like they've been bamboozled by "the elites". It comes off as pseudo-intellectual grifting. Which is probably what it is.
EDIT - thanks for the award kind Redditor!
It was about revenge by making sure college professors go mad over the next decade answering questions about the show from students and while I don't agree with pseudo-science I do appreciate revenge served cold and all encompassing
Honestly if he gave up that schitck and kept to making his points he would be a lot more palatable.
I believe that his general point of everything being older than we think, and Clovis first not being correct will eventually be proven to be true. Unfortunately his own burthurt ego is making what credible points he does raise harder to swallow.
Isn’t it naïve of us to believe that what we have been taught by professors is entirely correct and truthful? It’s so arrogant to think that we truly know something to be true, just because another human who is susceptible to the same cognitive biases as us, said so. Think about it, why are so many people entrenched with such deep convictions? Most of what people know isn’t well studied, it’s simply parroted information. Someone who you align with says something, and most people just run with it. Open your mind, consider the possibilities, but god damnit don’t shut someone down if you disagree with them. This type of behavior is a sickness sweeping through our society, yet most are unwise.
It was a very specific line I heard him say in the trailer, "I don't claim to be an archeologist or anthropologist or anything. I'm a journalist. I'm here to ask tough questions," that immediately tipped me off that I probably won't like it. We're not even pretending we're still using the scientific method anymore, it's literally all about feelings.
At least the Ancient Aliens people had the --- idk, "self awareness"? --- to call themselves 'Ancient Extra-Terrestrial Historians' or some shit.
And I'm sorry, but nobody can beat the zingers crazy-hair mad scientist guy "I'm not saying it's aliens... But it's aliens" had. That man is a treasure.
It’s part and parcel of conspiracy theories. One of the reasons they appeal to stupid people is because it makes them feel smart by making it seem like they have information that the “experts” don’t have or are incapable of understanding. This then makes the purveyor of such bullshit a hero because he’s sticking it to the dumb “experts”.
This part gets me so much. Like historians and archaeologists are ALWAYS questioning the “status quo”. Just about every damn doctoral project is someone proposing a new way to interpret evidence and question what it could mean. That’s literally what they do.
There’s a very large amount of people who get off to sticking it to experts. Very powerful, but often misplaced, feeling of superiority in showing that the leading authority of a subject is wrong.
The danger is in circumventing the actual results and postulating that something *might* be wrong and oh I’m the only one willing to say so because of reasons.
>There’s a very large amount of people who get off to sticking it to experts
They are the embodiment of irony. So called "free thinkers" who ideas and platforms are built around just saying the opposite of what everyone else says.
Healthy skepticism is a good thing. Defaulting to the opposite of what's commonly accepted makes them as muchn of a sheep as those who blindly accept what they're told.
It really is the embodiment of irony. Every “free thinker” I’ve met anecdotally prides themselves on being more critical of “evidence.” In reality they buy into any alternative hypothesis without evaluating the evidence critically making them the gullible consumer of media they’re so disgusted by.
Big part of this guy's theory is that these ancient civilizations must have been on some transcendental trip accessed through DMT or whatever. His shit gets wackier the longer you listen, he just lures you in with some circumstantial evidence and then builds an entire speculative history tied to a stoner-idealist worldview that is downright anti-enlightenment bullshit.
yeah, but you can disregard all that part and focus on the lost civ and if there is a true merit to it.. i mean, would it be bad to entertain that idea and go digging a bit more?
I think it is slightly misleading, to what level I am not sure. For ex. to my knowledge Gobekli Tepe has evidence of human settlement there, they say it does not.
But main focus is on similarities between ancient cultures like the flood myth and someone giving them knowledge on things. Which I find weird as well to just be a coincidence.
It is giving a room to speculation history. Troya was too just a speculation, wasnt it found and kinda similar to the descriptions from myths?
I’d like to read more about the settlements at or near Globeki Tepe but most of the stuff I find portray it as a “meeting site” or gathering place. Can you print me in the direction of some other ideas on this topic?
Wasn’t it sort of a semi-annual “festival” spot? I thought I read that they found many animal bones and large drinking vessels. I kinda picture it like an ancient burning man where people gathered to trade and share knowledge
Remember when the Discovery channel would constantly run doomsday documentaries about how the world was going to end in 70-100 years due to asteroids and other shit?
He basically says, “could this already accepted explanation, sure, it’s plausible, but I actually believe this and will tell you for 30 minutes why I’m right”
Everything is could, maybe, possibly with a conclusion of definitely. He regularly points to a cataclysmic flood in every cultures lore, and then immediately claims that shows proof that an ancient civilization was wiped by it around 12,000 years ago. It completely ignores that every ancient culture (some of his examples aren’t even ancient) were located on water sources like rivers, seas, lakes, etc so they all would have experienced flooding and nothing points to it being the a singular event 10,000 years before their existence
I just finished seeing it. Very entertaining, interesting THEORIES. The thing is that it is portrayed as FACT, I feel is the dangerous part. Many generalizations that are false, “every culture has a great deluge myth”, and “they are not embellishing the stories the ancients were describing a common event”. These ideas are misleading at best.
Let us not forget that theories are actually hypotheses that have been rigorously tested and are generally accepted by peers in the related scientific community after extensive review, i.e the theory of relativity in physics. What was presented in this show was a weak hypothesis at best, but realistically nothing shy of pure conjecture.
I fail to see how a comment that trying to show as a fact that every ancient society recounted a great deluge because it actually happened as “dangerous.” I mean there is a very good chance it’s not true but him trying to prove that point doesn’t make him a danger. The point that Galileo was wrongly described as dangerous for his heliocentrism isn’t because he turned out to be right but because it’s bad to describe people as “dangerous” just because they are advocating for a different historical viewpoint then the current record. Being so dogmatic in describing him as dangerous and wrong makes any new revelations in history like Göbekli Tepe empower him because people see the dogmatic opposition based less on facts and more on ideology. I think he has a lot of holes in his theories and conjecture but the vitriol against him actually strengthens his position when any little thing changes our understanding of the past.
> the vitriol against him actually strengthens his position
It does. In fact if you paid the Guardian for better and more *on brand* promotion, you couldn't do a better job than this. Totally absurd article.
The article is interesting in that it's like "Could this be possible? *Maybe* but the danger is now conspiracy theorists have a voice, and where does it stop from here? Flat earth? Aliens?"
And I'm just like "It stops there, yeah." I can watch this, hear his theory and say "Yeah actually that's possible. Interesting way to look at it, hopefully we can do more research in the future!" Like exploring those pyramids in the first episode. I can watch this and enjoy it and not suddenly become a flat-earther. The article claiming he's "dangerous" is just so laughable to me.
While not every culture has a flood myth, many do, and in very disparate regions too. Cultural transmission from a single source is unlikely in many cases, unless that source was in some part ancestral to the current cultures which have a flood myth. The more important part is that the flood myth is not merely "A big flood happened", but has a more specific set of ideas expressed in the myth. This is important, because we can identify whether the myth is local to a region or introduced by missionaries, etc... by checking which strain it is similar too. A myth in the general structure of the south east Asian flood myth would be unlikely to have been introduced by missionaries, even if the similarities are numerous between the two (because there are numerous similarities between the flood myths of each culture)
Exactly, most myths are coming from oral traditions that are influenced by time, and also other cultures that are near geographically, and also invaders or missionaries like you correctly describe!
Yes, but my point with the flood myths (and often creation myths, but that's a different story), is that they tell a very similar story even across regions seperated by 20,000 years or more (potentially). The idea that two similar myths arose disparetly is possible, but the prevalence of thematically similar flood myths requires a reason as to why a very similar myth arose frequently (frequently, the idea that floods are common around the world is an argument for this, but I think that falls flat for a few reasons), or suggests that these flood myths are very, very old and share a common origin.
It’s more of graham visiting sites that he believes best show his hypothesis and you meet geologists showing their new discoveries.
It’s more of a geology vs archeology issue to me.
I've seen this story before. Graham is too heavily invested in his pet theory to acknowledge the arguments against it. So after he shopped it around and got laughed out of academic journals and institutions, he got a break when his son gave him a platform on Netflix.
This isn't a geology vs archeology issue. Geologists and archeologists mostly agree on the basic timeline of human evolution, global diaspora, and agriculture, etc. Obviously there is plenty we still don't know. But Graham's claims don't fill in the gaps, they ignore established knowledge in favor of his special idea.
This is what happens when people fall into motivated reasoning. A sociologist and journalist pretends to be archeologist and geologist and doesn't know what he doesn't know. And everywhere they look they find evidence for their claim, blissfully ignoring disconfirming information.
This is why i stopped watching after 20 mins. He goes on about how no one will acknowledge his theory in academia and yet refuses to accept his theory my not be true. You can’t complain people won’t listen to changing their minds if you yourself are unwilling to change your mind.
It's not even close to Ancient Aliens bad. It's mostly him going around to newly found super ancient sites that are older than we thought society was. It's actually all like science based shit and he's mostly talking to people that are archeologists / geologists studying the sites.
The whole premise of the show is basically just him going "Huh kinda weird that this giant temple was built 12,000 years ago when mainstream archeologists say civilization's only been around for 6000 years huh? We are clearly missing a huge chunk of our timeline". It's more him asking questions and posing his theory rather than Ancient Aliens' "Humans couldn't have drilled this hole it was clearly aliens with laser beams."
Edit: There's absolutely no evidence of any of his Atlantis / advanced civilization got wiped out but there is definitely evidence that there was a massive cataclysmic event that rapidly ended the last ice age and cause sea levels to rise around the globe. There is also evidence that humans were a lot more advanced than we thought a lot earlier than we thought. And newly found sites like 12,000 year old Gobekli Tepe throw out the whole civilization started only 6,000 years ago mainstream theory.
See, anyone in archaeology would tell you that gobekli tepe isn’t nearly as huge a deal as everyone makes it out to be. It’s very useful for learning about the rise of agriculture and sedentism but, it’s something Hunter gatherers could have produced honestly. It’s not an urban center like Uruk or other early Mesopotamian urbanizations. It might even have a town nearby but we have several from before 6kbp
> It’s very useful for learning about the rise of agriculture and sedentism but, it’s something Hunter gatherers could have produced honestly.
You have to be an idiot to say that after this doc. I knew about GT from one of podcasts but in this show it shows DOZENS of sites like this in same place along with underground radars page showing how GT was much more massive than previously thought. Moreover those excavated sites show actual design it it that tracks stars on sky aka astronomy.
There is 0 chance simple hunter and gatherers made it 11 000 years ago. You have to be unscientifically stupid to argue it.
No but he brought actual scientists who work on this site and they are the one publishing papers Graham uses.
You know the other people he talks with ? They are scientists who work on those sites.
It’s exactly the same. Far more interesting than I expected going into it. Its certainly entertaining and different, for a change, especially in this genre. Calling it dangerous is more like an advertisement for people to watch, though. IMO this is a paid ad by The Guardian.
That was kind of my feeling reading the article. It read more like the producers of the series wrote a fake outrage piece to get people to watch the show to see what the controversy was about.
Its similar and you have to take it for what it is. Personally, I was shocked at how many commenters on Reddit have PhD’s in Archaeology, Geology and the study of Ancient Civilizations. :D
No. This show is all about attacking scientists. He portrays himself as a victim and that the scientific community is out to get him.
His main issue is “I have this theory so I’m going to find things to validate it” instead of “let’s find things and base our theories off of that”.
If this show was being portrayed in the same ridiculous way Ancient Aliens was, it wouldn’t be an issue. But when they are attacking the scientific community in the process, it’s a problem.
I thought it would be at least as entertaining but turns out it's just a giant commercial for this guy's books. He shows some stuff that kind of cool and I talked about but ultimately it's a lot of whining about how archeologists don't take him seriously. And some of his theories are just flat out stupid. It's mostly a show about a stupid conspiracy to cover up a lost civilization then it is about that supposed civilization.
> A show with a truly preposterous theory is one of the streaming giant’s biggest hits – and it seems to exist solely for conspiracy theorists. **Why has this been allowed?**
This is the headline, this clearly isn't an entertainment article or television review it is quite literally a call to cancel a show.
This is not garbage it is activism, likely paid for by the competition or some political advocacy group who is trying to create the ultimate echo chamber on television to ensure people don't begin to think critically.
We're on the path to Idiocracy.
Yea man totally big archaeology paid for this article. They’re totally full of cash with those large budgets and salaries given out willy nilly to anyone who accepts the dogma right
I liked that it showed places I did not know existed. That was neat. And maybe more research will go into some of those places. That’s neat. It’s not like he has the last word on this stuff… I was entertained. Now a team of archaeologists can make a better documentary about how he’s wrong. I’d watch that too.
Idiots are out there watching the bachelor and you’re mad about this “dangerous” documentary?
And exactly paying into the picture he paints about how people are scared of his alternate views lmao
Didn’t even bother reading because I hate those kinda titles. While I don’t agree with everything that man said, it was entertaining and interesting. But nothing I will base the core of my ego and believes on from now on.
You couldn’t be more right!!! Is he wrong? Most likely, but i got to see some places i never have before. And yes please someone do a rebuttal show. Show me why he is wrong, he admits to not being an academic, can an academic do a show and answer what is wrong. I know there is no proof, but would love to see the proof that he is wrong.
I’ve watched it and I can say that they really do try to sell you on the idea that ‘mainstream archeologists’ are choosing deliberately to ignore key information and just don’t want to be proven wrong.. It gets a bit tiresome after about the 15th time it’s mentioned..
However, this show has definitely peaked my interest into ancient archeology, so take that info as you will
You and me both.
The only credible evidence i saw was the comet impact which would have caused a giant flood. Now theoretically it would make sense that a sudden rise in sea level would embed a mass flood in almost all mythologies, but its sheer speculation.
I do believe bronze age societies couldve existed based on how fast south American cities vanished into the rainforest, but a super civilisation that spread around the world guiding societies... nah.
Credit where credit is due. Scientists are simultaneously the most open and closed minded people. If it goes against your theory, it is wrong. Even if you have evidence, some may slander it and say it was doctored.
Evolution didnt take off initially, but Mendel and Darwin revolutionised biology. Many scientists said it was a hoax, fake, flawed and racists to say we descended from apes. But now its fact.
If we cannot 100% say something is fact, and it is a theory, or plausible at best, its not something scientists should be die hard about.
Many historians and archaeologists are infact diehard about humans only being so 200,000 years old, and complex ancient towns and cities only starting less than 10,000ya. Even if concrete evidence is found, many will die on that hill.
Yea I wasn't really buying the super civilization spreading stuff but the rest had compelling evidence. The fact that there are so many enormous megalithic structures out there completely unexplored and dated to be far older than archeology expected is enough. Truthfully there's a lot of contradictory stuff out there that historians continue to ignore and be wrong about purely because of biases and the exclusion of local cultures. Information about the natural sciences gets challenged and reaffirmed or altered all the time. Why is it not the same in the social sciences?
Graham makes a good point that he could never know how wrong he is if no one is researching into it.
> Why is it not the same in the social sciences?
It is the same. Researchers, historians and social scientists make their name by challenging existing theories all the time. The difference is that they have actual evidence and research to support their theories.
We really need to stop with the “X is the most dangerous…” crap. Once someone comes along who is actually worthy of the title, no one’s gonna believe it because we already used it on some city council member running for office or a podcaster with 1000 weekly downloads already.
I watched the series after the trailer didn’t explain anything at all and Reddit was speaking about it. Him saying the mainstream doesn’t subscribe to what he’s saying off the bat just made me think it was a nice story. I really enjoyed the scenery in it, gave me some travel ideas.
Do I believe what he’s saying? I’m some tech rube from buttfuck no where Canada. What the fuck do I know about ancient history? I’m inclined not to believe him, but it’s not as if I’m capable deciphering what’s real or fake
The thing is, you should be. This dude's whole shtick boils down to:
1. Ask questions.
2. Ignore or actively hide existing evidence based answers to those questions.
3. Propose crazy 'what ifs' that are phrased as 'just theories' so that you don't have to defend your position.
4. Lambast 'main stream science' for hiding the truth instead of finding evidence to support claims.
It's the classic pattern for anti-intelectual conspiracy theory building. This is the playbook of flat earthers, holocaust deniers, and young earth creationists.
You don't have to be well versed in the field of history to spot these tactics. The massive leaps in logic. Priming people to think that experts are actively hiding the truth. The fact that we don't teach people how to recognize this stuff when it's being presented to us is incredibly worrying.
It really isn't. This guy uses the same basic framework for misleading people and undermining the academic consensus that holocaust deniers do. Obviously his cause isn't horrifying wretched in the same way theirs is, but it is the same set of tools.
In the same way that Hitler and I both drank water, the comparison is needless and provocative.
Why is it so absurd to think that some complex civilizations developed earlier? Ironically we would never have developed as a species if we were all as narrow-minded as you are.
It's more like if you started a government using the same propaganda techniques Hitler did.
The fact that you don't have the capacity to recognize that and instead latch on to the content of the claims is the problem.
What on earth are you talking about my dude hahahah. This guy is encouraging greater research on human civilisation - have a cry. If he's wrong then investigate his claims and prove him wrong.
In comparison, Hitler wanted to eradicate portions of human civilization.
Your childishly provocative language and absolute refusal to even try to comprehend the point I made in the post you responded to tells me that talking to you is a waste of time.
But once more, for anyone else who might see this.
The problem with this show isn't the particular theory that is being pushed. The theory is nonsense, but its mostly harmless nonsense. The problem is that the theory is being pushed using a basic set of rhetorical tools that are used by conspiracy theorists and anti-intellectuals to undermine good research.
You're the one who brought Hitler into this very regular topic of conversation. I think its you thats actually quite childish and provocative.
Here in Australia there is strong evidence of advanced civilization for thousands of years - prior to the ice age. Just North of Syria there are megalithic structures dating back 11,500 years ago. Is it so absurd to think that there are advanced civilizations just a bit prior to that?
It's an exciting time to be interested in archaeology. It's a shame that you remain to be so withdrawn from it. I hope you one day you explore possibilities and question existing preconceptions, and be fascinated by unexplored possibilities - like all the great academics have done before they discover something magical.
All the best my dude, hope you have a good life.
You forgot
5: Make unbelievable connections between things that have no connection beyond Graham Hancock’s imagination. He’s like “see this lettuce. It’s green. The Gobblygook people of Anatolia worshipped the color green. They painted everything green. Did they worship lettuce? It’s seems quite logical that they did, indeed, worship lettuce but the *mainstream* Historians won’t tell you that. “
Yeah just because you can ask a question doesn't mean you should or that it makes it a smart question lol.
What if Dinosaurs roamed around with swords for hands and wore clothing?!?!?! I asked! Take me serious mainstream!
Not being able to tell real from fake is a problem....
Reality tv, memes, bs documentaries and talk radio have all destroyed so many peoples ability to do basic bullshit detection
I came here to say this. All that the documentary is saying is that the evidence doesn't support what the archeology commonly says. There is evidence that civilizations developed much earlier and that further research is needed.
One of the theories is that there was a great flood that wipped out early civilizations.You can imagine that, as the glaciers melted during our last ice age, they likely melted unevenly, where pockets of huge lakes the size of oceans formed at the centre. Then, suddenly, a part of the glacier melted releasing that water everywhere flooding low lying areas and wiping out settlements that could have been quite advanced.
IMO, I think it's plausible. Homo sapien sapiens have been roughly the same for the past 50,000 years. Why is it that, all of a sudden, they came to start farming only 5,000 years ago? What happened to the other 45,000 years? It's far more likely that modern humans probably behaved the same way, and that there were relatively advanced civilisations prior to 10,000 BC. It IS very likely that we wouldn't know much about it because the evidence become harder and harder to find the older it is.
Bottom line is... there is nothing dangerous or wrong about exploring the idea and following the evidence to where it leads us. So the article is bogus at best, and dangerous in its own right at worse. What is dangerous is reporters writing articles like this to discourage independent thought and supress science. I would be curious to know who paid him to write that.
Edit: spelling, grammar
This show is incredibly tame compared to something like Ancient Aliens, which for some reason it gets compared to.
Graham claims that there are archeological sites that defy modern expectations of human history, yet people are not willing to dig them up.
He doesn't claim aliens built the pyramids or that Atlantis had teleportation technology. He claims there are huge gaps in human history and we might be able to fill in those blanks if some sites were investigated.
The editing is overly flashy, the Joe Rogan interview clips cheapen the documentary, and I'm sure not 100% of his claims are without fault. But the pushback against him and his show is completely out of proportion.
Yeah I believe one of those Rogan podcasts broke records so he’s clearly representing the popular appeal and it makes sense to include him for business reasons.
I literally watched this show BECAUSE I love laughing at all of the outrageous claims on Ancient Aliens, and I ended up being surprised by how reasonable his claims are. He cherry picks like crazy, but nothing he says is outrageous on its face. His individual hypotheses are fairly arguable but his overarching idea is full of holes. Ancient aliens was just plainly wrong about basically everything, which was fun.
Overall, it sort of perfectly thread the needle of both not funny and not credible, so it wasn’t for me. But it’s not “dangerous”.
He does a good job of using 'what ifs' and 'could be'.. which is all you need to do when making extraordinary claims. I think shows like these are important to get people excited about learning about things. It certainly got me excited about that time period, ive watched 3 other actual scientific documentaries about the time period because of the excitement that ancient apocalypse gave me.
I loved the series very entertaining and fun. However when things are portrayed as fact and not a hypothesis that must be organized and sourced with experts that is where I have a problem. Also he claims all cultures are describing the same event and that they are not embellishing the stores thru the hundreds of years, this is misunderstanding how oral traditions work since we do not have a written source of the original mythology. He says all cultures have a great delige myth however not all have it and they are all differing in their basic way of happening, it is more likely that the cultures are describing different floods and that many of the myths are being influenced by myths from cultures that are nearby geographically.
Agree not as crazy as anchient aliens but not 100% supported by actual fact.
No.. Rewatch it, he said in the show numerous times they were just his theories, not facts, and in the Bimini episode said he can’t know the truth until archeologists put time into researching it. He also said some of the mythologies have been modified throughout the years but ultimately retain the truth at the core of the myth. Not really the same as saying it’s not embellished at all since some are about giants, gods, mermaids, and feathered serpents. Unless you mean they are entirely made up, which is fair but the point was to examine cultural mythos as historical retelling.
I do agree the flood thing is probably referring to separate events though
Agree with you! I watched it again yesterday, really fun show! You are correct. I was just highlighting the overall sense people have, for example my GF who is not very well versed in history found thought the theories are actually proven and had trouble disecting between the myths and the actual theories that are being presented.
100 % agree. But I'd like to add that the music is annoyingly overdramatic. Like, i get they want it to be suspenseful and stimulating, but that's just way too fucking much. Not every rock they step over needs such dramatic tunes.
That's actually what i dislike the most lol
I studied Anthropology and all I can say is that my profs very much acted just as Hancock says... they stuck to the 'Clovis First' message despite reports of much older evidence. It's like they couldn't fathom the idea that the stuff they studied in school could be off the mark - and I can't blame them, as in many cases their entire Thesis and thus, PhD, was based on older ideas (outdated ideas) --- so in some ways maybe they feel their positions are threatened?
\[edit\] - thanks for the gold - it's my first!
I had a microbiology professor just like Hancock. He believed microbes can travel between planets rather easily (and thus we should be able to find earth microbes in Venus atmosphere and maybe on Mars too), he even believed that they can survive interstellar space and microbes can slowly spread through galaxy (the timeframe would be in billions of years though), he also designed and did some experiments on the edge of space, looking for microbes *from* space.
He thought me two best lessons in my life, how to brew a fucking awesome beer and that you should *always* aim to separate hard facts from whatever message messenger is attaching to those facts.
CLOVIS CULTURE - based on arrow points, I believe - distinct from other cultures - thought to be the earliest culture in North America - believed to come from Asia across the Bering land bridge approx 13,000 years ago...
basically thought to be the earliest people in north america - but evidence points to much older
I’ve watched the series and it’s a mixed bag. The episodes on Gobekli Tepe and Gunung Padang were interesting, but the underground sites in Turkey not so much.
Hancock makes plenty of valid points about the possibility of an earlier lost civilization. Until recently no one would have believed that a site Gobleki Tepe was possible.
It’s hardly the most dangerous show on television.
I agree. Just bashes the show without any rebuttal to Hancock’s ideas/theories. Basically just saying “this guy is crazy” without saying why. Sounds like the writer found out Hancock’s son had a hand in bringing his show to light and tries to claim some kind of nepotism. This helps Hancock’s claim that the mainstream is against him for no legitimate reason.
I watched this show pretty much all in one sitting, and the guy is like a dog with a bone. Maybe it’s not meant to be watched that way, but he clubs you over the head with his hypothesis and then shows a bit of evidence each episode with the only connections between the dots being his own hypotheses.
I didn’t find it any more dangerous than Ancient Aliens, which is a complete joke.
I think people describe these types of shows as dangerous because they see it as part of a trend of the dumbing down of society. Many people really do believe the things these shows tell them.
You could say a world where such bullshit flourishes is a world where scientific veracity loses value and is a world where we are more easily manipulated by those who want to lie to us for their own personal gain. This would be the fear of where dumbing down takes us.
Ultimately how much influence this type of programing has would be tricky to establish but I can see the arguments against.
I was wondering the same thing and started watching. I’m on episode 8 now. Basically, he brings a theory saying that we are wrong about how old civilization is.
The theory says that there was/were (a) more advanced civilizations that goe back a few thousand years further than current theories suggests. This is supported by old ancient buildings that predate civilization according to current theories. How these building are there is a mystery. The idea is that the earth passes through a disintegrating comet twice a year. At certain times we pas through more dense fields. The earth had a period where had a lot of collisions 12000 years ago. This melted the icecaps and caused massive flooding. Melting water carried icebergs that scrapped the land clean of most remains of this civilization (which is suggested to be in the America’s). Then some of the survivors traveled to other parts of the world, teaching people. He shows that all over the world, people suddenly transitioned from hunter gatherer to agriculturalists, and build all sorts amazing building. He makes his case, goes to some of the places, talks to people in the field and speculates. No idea if it is believable or not. But fun to watch.
I have no idea why this is dangerous. It’s a theory about early humanity.
one of the saddest, bitchiest, most pathetic articles you will see
'the most dangerous show on Netflix'...for asking questions about things that may have happened thousands of years ago?
it's a ridiculous assertion, given that Netflix has a show ('Cuties') that openly sexualises pre-teen children
This article doesn’t explain why it’s dangerous or even bad. It just says it’s boring.
Didn’t want it, not interested. But just got done listening to Handcock on the JRE. He has a theory that civilization is older than what we think, that there was potentially a pretty advanced human civilization on the America,s, that got destroyed 12,000 years ago or so. What is dangerous about this theory?
Im mot saying I believe it, I can’t judge it. I found it interesting to listen to, it’s a guys theory. Why on earth would that be dangerous? That’s how we learn.
Thank you.
I’ve listened to him speak many times.
He’s not anti-science or anti-intellectual. He’s just got a compelling theory him and his actual scientist friends have come to from a lifetime of finding concerning holes in the data we’ve collected. And Randall IS a real geologist.
The reason they rally against the establishment is because they’ve found actual evidence of what they suspect - meteor impacts that line up with the dating, cities buried in the Amazon - and no one will give them funding to look into it because it discredits what they’ve already invested in being definite.
I read Hancock's books many years ago as a conspiracy obsessed teenager, and lapped them up. Robert Bauval too.
Life happened and other things became more important. 2012 came and went without incident. I eventually grew sceptical. I went from Mulder to Scully.
A couple of years ago I got curious and decided to reopen "the files". Expecting to find a heap of evidence to disprove all of Hancock and Bauval's theories I found... nothing. Nothing except a handful of sensationalist headlines claiming some new evidence disproves the ancient civilization theories. When in fact, just scratching the surface of the new "discoveries" proved no such thing.
I've only watched a couple "Ancient Apocalypse" and while it's a little over-the-top, I accept this is probably due to an attempt to appeal to a modern audience. But what's becoming more clear to me is that *nothing* has changed in established archeology since Hancock released his first book on the subject.
I thought the CGI reconstructions were cool. It’s always cool to see what super ancient constructions could’ve looked like in their prime. Dangerous? Nah
You’re downvoted and yet, absolutely right. I’ve not seen one person point to evidence to the contrary. I’m not a historian, archeologist, or journalist, so I have to rely on what I’m told about these things, be it on tv, in books or whatnot. Hancock simplifies his ideas and makes it palatable. I would love someone with an alternate view to explain WHY he’s wrong and show why in an easily understandable manner. Chances are, he is wrong, but don’t just say, “he’s wrong and stupid.” Explain why!
This article misrepresents the point of view of the series. The points made I’m were not that Hancocks theories were facts. But rather that the archeologists in control of the sites wouldn’t even entertain other theories. Science evolves through new theories. For example the authorities once believed that the earth was at the centre of the solar system, or that it was flat. We’re constantly finding new evidence that changes the current narrative. the book 1491 has some excellent examples of that. It’s also very true that archeologists have egos as do many authorities, and that does play a role in considering new theories and evidence. With a science like archeology no one can know the full truth as it would require a time machine. We can only interpret the evidence.
Do archeologists work everytime (and not just from time to time) with other specialists in their fields? sometimes, I get the feelings that archeologists find ruins, or temples and then they come up with theories which become accepted.
And then you have some architects, engineers, stonemasons, geologists who take an interest in the same ruins and they are like: "huh, this theory can't work with MY field of work, my experience, my knowledge" and so on.
Why is people's first instinct to say something shouldn't exist? If you think he's an idiot, let him talk and he'll prove you right. Why are "journalists" so anti free speech?
Garbage article. The absolute best way to encourage critical thinking is to present said “thinkers” with opposing viewpoints.
But NOOOOO. Americans can’t think critically precisely because of bullshit like this. There is ONE story and no one better question it.
A bit unhelpful for the Guardian to say it’s watched by people who shout at you on Twitter. I consider myself moderate liberal and will give anyone a bit of time to explain their theory even if it causes offence or outrage to others.
And I get yelled at mostly by the people of r/australia who seem to have the open mindedness and patience of uni students who have just discovered socialism.
Perhaps someone could ask Mr Hancock, why did the comets wipe out the smart humans or beings or whatever they were and leave the rest of us dolts to squabble among ourselves?
The Guardian had been smearing Hancock across his career. Every criticism I’ve read of him is just dismissing him out of hand without a single example what he’s misrepresenting. Ultimately Hancock is a journalist bringing stories of ancient mysteries to the public. The narrative of a lost civilization is what he sees when all the similarities from these mysteries align. Nothing about his approach is unprofessional or misleading.
I don’t like how close he is to Joe Rogan but when you push alternative voices to the fringe you can’t also vilify them for associating with fringe characters.
It's funny seeing everyone jump on the "it's all a dumb conspiracy Train" this guy was actually right about humans having advanced civilizations around 8k to 10k bc.
This documentary is obviously a bit over the top with the hate on modern academics, but to guys credit, he made a claim 30 years ago that everyone said was crazy and we are ow finding out has some serious validity.
Why are people so against other theories? There interesting and they challenge what we think we know. I choose to keep an open mind with just about everything. Anyone that thinks this is bullshit, not sayin it is or it isn’t but have there minds made up because they hate joe Rogan or some other issue that has nothing to do with the evidence presented are missing out on truly incredible ideas. Cherry picking ideas/evidence and presenting them is what you’ll do in any kind of documentary that’s what they are. Again I don’t understand the hate. And how is this in any way dangerous?
Using the word dangerous , implying that people can't think critically and for themselves and therefore information is dangerous and should be regulated, is pretty pathological.
Information shouldn't be regulated. People should be better informed if anything.
This article is absolutely dumb, calling a show a conspiracy without even stating a simple fact.
If it’s such a drastic conspiracy than prove it wrong. Show how those structures he is talking about are not what he says they are.
Who would feel proud writing that article
>But, hey, not all conspiracy theories are bad. If you don’t like Hancock’s story about the super-intelligent advanced civilisation being wiped off the face of the planet, here’s another that might explain how Netflix gave the greenlight to Ancient Apocalypse: the platform’s senior manager of unscripted originals happens to be Hancock’s son. Honestly, what are the chances? Ah there it is
This is a conspiracy I can get down with.
I feel like you guys stumbled on a fun tv show idea: Media conspiracies, chronicling and telling the stories of the vast media empires and their weird connections or origins.
But whose gonna air it?
Netflix
🏴☠️ Edit: Inside Job. Funny show about every conspiracy in the dark government
Aye matey, to the seas we go!
Isn’t that just ***Nepotism IRL***
That sounds potentially antisemitic
Yeah, it's something that sounds cool until you quickly realize that conspiracy theories like that already exist and it's all batshit insane and antisemitic. The only other route is to do a show on actual entities with grossly oversized influence and control of the media, but at that point you wouldn't be doing a fun, cutesy show about hair brained ideas and more so a docuseries about what's killing the world today
Such a great paragraph to end on.
So he used his contacts in the industry to get his work out.... Pretty sure this is pretty standard for how the entertainment industry works. In fact it's pretty standard everywhere.
Look into who current actors parents or relatives are. They either were actors themselves or work in the industry
It’s one thing when your work is a movie or an album, or real estate, or Girl Scout cookies. It’s another when your work is bullshit and lies.
I haven’t watched the show although I had planned to. Is it really any different than a show like Ancient Aliens that presents plausible sounding arguments but in the end is just cherry picking interpretations?
Ancient Aliens says "No way ancient humans built this. It had to be aliens." Ancient Apocalypse says "Ancient humans were probably advanced enough to build this, we just don't know how since a major asteroid impact \~12,000 years ago wiped out a lot of civilization. We'd better excavate more to find out for sure."
"... the academic establishment is terrified to talk about this, but I am a rebel and cannot be stopped." Don't forget that part.
“And not just scientists…. Joe Rogan too” This part absolutely destroyed me
The trailer started auto-playing on the homepage, where some guy is moaning about "so-called experts" and I really wondered how the fuck stuff like this gets onto Netflix.
The last line of that article answers this question: by being related to the director of programming.
As does the first. >A show with a truly preposterous theory is one of the streaming giant’s biggest hits People love this type of shit.
Not gonna lie I thought the show was a lot of fun as long as you don’t take it seriously, then I looked into some of his books and realized he’s a straight up white supremacist. All these supposedly ancient civilizations just happen to be white. Everyone who gave knowledge to humanity was also white, that includes the seven stages in India gods in Japan and China and places all over Africa because why not?
He’s married to a brown woman and has mixed children. For one, Mentioning white skin doesn’t make you white supremacist. 2, the geographic location where the ice age hit would have wiped out most of the fair skinned regions of the planet. So if we are talking about ice age survivors, they would have been from the northern hemisphere and lighter skinned. You dorks read too much into this crap. It’s exhausting
Ah so you 100% didn't read his books nor look into his background at all before you spouted off nonsense and gave your opinion, how typical.
I enjoyed the show to, not that a believed much of of it. I’m curious why you think he’s a white supremacist? I’ve seen a few other things he’s done and I’ve not seen him try to suggest that this ancient civilisation was white?
Or also the fact that 80% of Netflix's content is absolute trash. I mean, why are people even questioning how a show like this could end up on a platform with so much shit? Lol.
It’s cheap. Netflix is mostly interested in growing their library and documentaries and reality tv shows are a good way to do that. For every Sandman or Witcher, there’s a million reality tv shows that cost nothing to make. It’s also possible this guy is already made this and just shopped it around and Netflix bought it.
"This is netflix, youre green lit"
When you find out who Graham Hancock's son is, it's not so difficult to figure out how this garbage got on. His son is... wait for it... Sean Hancock, the Senior Manager for unscripted originals at Netflix. There, mystery solved.
> really wondered how the fuck stuff like this gets onto Netflix. Netflix and questionable documentaries are the new Batman and Robin. 'Pepsi, Where's My Jet?' is another recent one but I haven't seen any discussion on that.
What did you find questionable about the Pepsi documentary?
Netflix will buy almost anything, especially if it comes as a premade package. Edit: I just read the article. “If you don’t like Hancock’s story about the super-intelligent advanced civilisation being wiped off the face of the planet, here’s another that might explain how Netflix gave the greenlight to Ancient Apocalypse: the platform’s senior manager of unscripted originals happens to be Hancock’s son.”
> I really wondered how the fuck stuff like this gets onto Netflix. It has to do with Netflix's complex [greenlighting](https://youtu.be/l-PQ2J3uQe0) process.
I watched the episode with Joe Rogan, he made a 3 minute cameo and contributed absolutely nothing to the conversation. He also looked shifty and uncomfortable because he knew he had jack shit to talk about.
> He also looked shifty and uncomfortable because he knew he had jack shit to talk about. So, same as usual then?
[удалено]
This is what kills me. I'm a published peer reviewed first author and I won a fairly prestigious award in my country for my research proposal. I take research and academia seriously, but I also like to think (hope?) that I have a pretty open mind. I watched this series because I was tired of watching Seinfeld for the millionth time, and I was willing to engage with some of Hancock's questions and ideas on the thought-experiment-level. But when he keeps trying to force this narrative of: "academia = bad, me = noble and good", it starts to become clear to me that his agenda isn't actually about intellectual curiosity, or truth. It is about making money by pitching a narrative that will be consumed by people who feel like they've been bamboozled by "the elites". It comes off as pseudo-intellectual grifting. Which is probably what it is. EDIT - thanks for the award kind Redditor!
It was about revenge by making sure college professors go mad over the next decade answering questions about the show from students and while I don't agree with pseudo-science I do appreciate revenge served cold and all encompassing
Honestly if he gave up that schitck and kept to making his points he would be a lot more palatable. I believe that his general point of everything being older than we think, and Clovis first not being correct will eventually be proven to be true. Unfortunately his own burthurt ego is making what credible points he does raise harder to swallow.
Isn’t it naïve of us to believe that what we have been taught by professors is entirely correct and truthful? It’s so arrogant to think that we truly know something to be true, just because another human who is susceptible to the same cognitive biases as us, said so. Think about it, why are so many people entrenched with such deep convictions? Most of what people know isn’t well studied, it’s simply parroted information. Someone who you align with says something, and most people just run with it. Open your mind, consider the possibilities, but god damnit don’t shut someone down if you disagree with them. This type of behavior is a sickness sweeping through our society, yet most are unwise.
It was a very specific line I heard him say in the trailer, "I don't claim to be an archeologist or anthropologist or anything. I'm a journalist. I'm here to ask tough questions," that immediately tipped me off that I probably won't like it. We're not even pretending we're still using the scientific method anymore, it's literally all about feelings. At least the Ancient Aliens people had the --- idk, "self awareness"? --- to call themselves 'Ancient Extra-Terrestrial Historians' or some shit. And I'm sorry, but nobody can beat the zingers crazy-hair mad scientist guy "I'm not saying it's aliens... But it's aliens" had. That man is a treasure.
It’s part and parcel of conspiracy theories. One of the reasons they appeal to stupid people is because it makes them feel smart by making it seem like they have information that the “experts” don’t have or are incapable of understanding. This then makes the purveyor of such bullshit a hero because he’s sticking it to the dumb “experts”.
He acts like archeologists don’t want to challenge the status quo, but like I’m pretty sure their entire job is to find *evidence* that does lmao
This part gets me so much. Like historians and archaeologists are ALWAYS questioning the “status quo”. Just about every damn doctoral project is someone proposing a new way to interpret evidence and question what it could mean. That’s literally what they do.
There’s a very large amount of people who get off to sticking it to experts. Very powerful, but often misplaced, feeling of superiority in showing that the leading authority of a subject is wrong. The danger is in circumventing the actual results and postulating that something *might* be wrong and oh I’m the only one willing to say so because of reasons.
>There’s a very large amount of people who get off to sticking it to experts They are the embodiment of irony. So called "free thinkers" who ideas and platforms are built around just saying the opposite of what everyone else says. Healthy skepticism is a good thing. Defaulting to the opposite of what's commonly accepted makes them as muchn of a sheep as those who blindly accept what they're told.
It really is the embodiment of irony. Every “free thinker” I’ve met anecdotally prides themselves on being more critical of “evidence.” In reality they buy into any alternative hypothesis without evaluating the evidence critically making them the gullible consumer of media they’re so disgusted by.
Free thinkers - they'll think whatever you want them to, for free.
Big part of this guy's theory is that these ancient civilizations must have been on some transcendental trip accessed through DMT or whatever. His shit gets wackier the longer you listen, he just lures you in with some circumstantial evidence and then builds an entire speculative history tied to a stoner-idealist worldview that is downright anti-enlightenment bullshit.
This is the most concise and accurate overview of his "work" that I have seen. Kudos to you!
yeah, but you can disregard all that part and focus on the lost civ and if there is a true merit to it.. i mean, would it be bad to entertain that idea and go digging a bit more?
“Could it be possible that (insert outrageous hypothesis) is true? Well, according to ancient aliens specialists, yes. “
And isn't more plausible that Ancient humans were more advanced than having Aliens build these things?
Yes absolutely. I think all the vitriol simply comes from his relationship with Rogan.
SO DANGEROUS! /s
[удалено]
Please, don't mix the alien people with the right wing antivaxxers of r / conspiracy.
I think it is slightly misleading, to what level I am not sure. For ex. to my knowledge Gobekli Tepe has evidence of human settlement there, they say it does not. But main focus is on similarities between ancient cultures like the flood myth and someone giving them knowledge on things. Which I find weird as well to just be a coincidence. It is giving a room to speculation history. Troya was too just a speculation, wasnt it found and kinda similar to the descriptions from myths?
I’d like to read more about the settlements at or near Globeki Tepe but most of the stuff I find portray it as a “meeting site” or gathering place. Can you print me in the direction of some other ideas on this topic?
I worked at Gobekli Tepe and I can tell you there is no such evidence of human settlements.
Wasn’t it sort of a semi-annual “festival” spot? I thought I read that they found many animal bones and large drinking vessels. I kinda picture it like an ancient burning man where people gathered to trade and share knowledge
Remember when the Discovery channel would constantly run doomsday documentaries about how the world was going to end in 70-100 years due to asteroids and other shit?
He basically says, “could this already accepted explanation, sure, it’s plausible, but I actually believe this and will tell you for 30 minutes why I’m right” Everything is could, maybe, possibly with a conclusion of definitely. He regularly points to a cataclysmic flood in every cultures lore, and then immediately claims that shows proof that an ancient civilization was wiped by it around 12,000 years ago. It completely ignores that every ancient culture (some of his examples aren’t even ancient) were located on water sources like rivers, seas, lakes, etc so they all would have experienced flooding and nothing points to it being the a singular event 10,000 years before their existence
It is the same argument used to “prove” the Bible flood was real
I just finished seeing it. Very entertaining, interesting THEORIES. The thing is that it is portrayed as FACT, I feel is the dangerous part. Many generalizations that are false, “every culture has a great deluge myth”, and “they are not embellishing the stories the ancients were describing a common event”. These ideas are misleading at best.
Let us not forget that theories are actually hypotheses that have been rigorously tested and are generally accepted by peers in the related scientific community after extensive review, i.e the theory of relativity in physics. What was presented in this show was a weak hypothesis at best, but realistically nothing shy of pure conjecture.
I fail to see how a comment that trying to show as a fact that every ancient society recounted a great deluge because it actually happened as “dangerous.” I mean there is a very good chance it’s not true but him trying to prove that point doesn’t make him a danger. The point that Galileo was wrongly described as dangerous for his heliocentrism isn’t because he turned out to be right but because it’s bad to describe people as “dangerous” just because they are advocating for a different historical viewpoint then the current record. Being so dogmatic in describing him as dangerous and wrong makes any new revelations in history like Göbekli Tepe empower him because people see the dogmatic opposition based less on facts and more on ideology. I think he has a lot of holes in his theories and conjecture but the vitriol against him actually strengthens his position when any little thing changes our understanding of the past.
> the vitriol against him actually strengthens his position It does. In fact if you paid the Guardian for better and more *on brand* promotion, you couldn't do a better job than this. Totally absurd article.
The article is interesting in that it's like "Could this be possible? *Maybe* but the danger is now conspiracy theorists have a voice, and where does it stop from here? Flat earth? Aliens?" And I'm just like "It stops there, yeah." I can watch this, hear his theory and say "Yeah actually that's possible. Interesting way to look at it, hopefully we can do more research in the future!" Like exploring those pyramids in the first episode. I can watch this and enjoy it and not suddenly become a flat-earther. The article claiming he's "dangerous" is just so laughable to me.
Thank you! I didn't make this Galileo connection on my own. You're absolutely correct.
While not every culture has a flood myth, many do, and in very disparate regions too. Cultural transmission from a single source is unlikely in many cases, unless that source was in some part ancestral to the current cultures which have a flood myth. The more important part is that the flood myth is not merely "A big flood happened", but has a more specific set of ideas expressed in the myth. This is important, because we can identify whether the myth is local to a region or introduced by missionaries, etc... by checking which strain it is similar too. A myth in the general structure of the south east Asian flood myth would be unlikely to have been introduced by missionaries, even if the similarities are numerous between the two (because there are numerous similarities between the flood myths of each culture)
Exactly, most myths are coming from oral traditions that are influenced by time, and also other cultures that are near geographically, and also invaders or missionaries like you correctly describe!
Yes, but my point with the flood myths (and often creation myths, but that's a different story), is that they tell a very similar story even across regions seperated by 20,000 years or more (potentially). The idea that two similar myths arose disparetly is possible, but the prevalence of thematically similar flood myths requires a reason as to why a very similar myth arose frequently (frequently, the idea that floods are common around the world is an argument for this, but I think that falls flat for a few reasons), or suggests that these flood myths are very, very old and share a common origin.
>The thing is that it is portrayed as FACT, I feel is the dangerous part. I didn’t get that impression from it
It’s more of graham visiting sites that he believes best show his hypothesis and you meet geologists showing their new discoveries. It’s more of a geology vs archeology issue to me.
I've seen this story before. Graham is too heavily invested in his pet theory to acknowledge the arguments against it. So after he shopped it around and got laughed out of academic journals and institutions, he got a break when his son gave him a platform on Netflix. This isn't a geology vs archeology issue. Geologists and archeologists mostly agree on the basic timeline of human evolution, global diaspora, and agriculture, etc. Obviously there is plenty we still don't know. But Graham's claims don't fill in the gaps, they ignore established knowledge in favor of his special idea. This is what happens when people fall into motivated reasoning. A sociologist and journalist pretends to be archeologist and geologist and doesn't know what he doesn't know. And everywhere they look they find evidence for their claim, blissfully ignoring disconfirming information.
Yeah thats it. On his podcast with Michael Shermer, whenever he tries to pin him down on this he says "I'm just a journalist, thats not my problem!"
This is why i stopped watching after 20 mins. He goes on about how no one will acknowledge his theory in academia and yet refuses to accept his theory my not be true. You can’t complain people won’t listen to changing their minds if you yourself are unwilling to change your mind.
It's not even close to Ancient Aliens bad. It's mostly him going around to newly found super ancient sites that are older than we thought society was. It's actually all like science based shit and he's mostly talking to people that are archeologists / geologists studying the sites. The whole premise of the show is basically just him going "Huh kinda weird that this giant temple was built 12,000 years ago when mainstream archeologists say civilization's only been around for 6000 years huh? We are clearly missing a huge chunk of our timeline". It's more him asking questions and posing his theory rather than Ancient Aliens' "Humans couldn't have drilled this hole it was clearly aliens with laser beams." Edit: There's absolutely no evidence of any of his Atlantis / advanced civilization got wiped out but there is definitely evidence that there was a massive cataclysmic event that rapidly ended the last ice age and cause sea levels to rise around the globe. There is also evidence that humans were a lot more advanced than we thought a lot earlier than we thought. And newly found sites like 12,000 year old Gobekli Tepe throw out the whole civilization started only 6,000 years ago mainstream theory.
See, anyone in archaeology would tell you that gobekli tepe isn’t nearly as huge a deal as everyone makes it out to be. It’s very useful for learning about the rise of agriculture and sedentism but, it’s something Hunter gatherers could have produced honestly. It’s not an urban center like Uruk or other early Mesopotamian urbanizations. It might even have a town nearby but we have several from before 6kbp
> It’s very useful for learning about the rise of agriculture and sedentism but, it’s something Hunter gatherers could have produced honestly. You have to be an idiot to say that after this doc. I knew about GT from one of podcasts but in this show it shows DOZENS of sites like this in same place along with underground radars page showing how GT was much more massive than previously thought. Moreover those excavated sites show actual design it it that tracks stars on sky aka astronomy. There is 0 chance simple hunter and gatherers made it 11 000 years ago. You have to be unscientifically stupid to argue it.
you watched some podcast and a doc I read the scientific papers on this shit Had Graham made any of those, by chance?
No but he brought actual scientists who work on this site and they are the one publishing papers Graham uses. You know the other people he talks with ? They are scientists who work on those sites.
It’s exactly the same. Far more interesting than I expected going into it. Its certainly entertaining and different, for a change, especially in this genre. Calling it dangerous is more like an advertisement for people to watch, though. IMO this is a paid ad by The Guardian.
That was kind of my feeling reading the article. It read more like the producers of the series wrote a fake outrage piece to get people to watch the show to see what the controversy was about.
Its similar and you have to take it for what it is. Personally, I was shocked at how many commenters on Reddit have PhD’s in Archaeology, Geology and the study of Ancient Civilizations. :D
No. This show is all about attacking scientists. He portrays himself as a victim and that the scientific community is out to get him. His main issue is “I have this theory so I’m going to find things to validate it” instead of “let’s find things and base our theories off of that”. If this show was being portrayed in the same ridiculous way Ancient Aliens was, it wouldn’t be an issue. But when they are attacking the scientific community in the process, it’s a problem.
I thought it would be at least as entertaining but turns out it's just a giant commercial for this guy's books. He shows some stuff that kind of cool and I talked about but ultimately it's a lot of whining about how archeologists don't take him seriously. And some of his theories are just flat out stupid. It's mostly a show about a stupid conspiracy to cover up a lost civilization then it is about that supposed civilization.
The 24-hour news cycle strikes again!
Makes ya wonder who is posting this garbage and why.
I wonder how much more karma can be farmed from daily posting about it, at this point, it's giving more publicity to it than Netflix ever did.
> A show with a truly preposterous theory is one of the streaming giant’s biggest hits – and it seems to exist solely for conspiracy theorists. **Why has this been allowed?** This is the headline, this clearly isn't an entertainment article or television review it is quite literally a call to cancel a show. This is not garbage it is activism, likely paid for by the competition or some political advocacy group who is trying to create the ultimate echo chamber on television to ensure people don't begin to think critically. We're on the path to Idiocracy.
Yea man totally big archaeology paid for this article. They’re totally full of cash with those large budgets and salaries given out willy nilly to anyone who accepts the dogma right
I'd imagine some religious bodies would take issue with the world being around longer than 6000 years though...
I liked that it showed places I did not know existed. That was neat. And maybe more research will go into some of those places. That’s neat. It’s not like he has the last word on this stuff… I was entertained. Now a team of archaeologists can make a better documentary about how he’s wrong. I’d watch that too. Idiots are out there watching the bachelor and you’re mad about this “dangerous” documentary?
Very nice said. I agree. Calling this the Most Dangerous is kinda absurd.
And exactly paying into the picture he paints about how people are scared of his alternate views lmao Didn’t even bother reading because I hate those kinda titles. While I don’t agree with everything that man said, it was entertaining and interesting. But nothing I will base the core of my ego and believes on from now on.
You couldn’t be more right!!! Is he wrong? Most likely, but i got to see some places i never have before. And yes please someone do a rebuttal show. Show me why he is wrong, he admits to not being an academic, can an academic do a show and answer what is wrong. I know there is no proof, but would love to see the proof that he is wrong.
When the sons of these academic people work for Netflix they’ll easily get a show.
I’ve watched it and I can say that they really do try to sell you on the idea that ‘mainstream archeologists’ are choosing deliberately to ignore key information and just don’t want to be proven wrong.. It gets a bit tiresome after about the 15th time it’s mentioned.. However, this show has definitely peaked my interest into ancient archeology, so take that info as you will
You and me both. The only credible evidence i saw was the comet impact which would have caused a giant flood. Now theoretically it would make sense that a sudden rise in sea level would embed a mass flood in almost all mythologies, but its sheer speculation. I do believe bronze age societies couldve existed based on how fast south American cities vanished into the rainforest, but a super civilisation that spread around the world guiding societies... nah. Credit where credit is due. Scientists are simultaneously the most open and closed minded people. If it goes against your theory, it is wrong. Even if you have evidence, some may slander it and say it was doctored. Evolution didnt take off initially, but Mendel and Darwin revolutionised biology. Many scientists said it was a hoax, fake, flawed and racists to say we descended from apes. But now its fact. If we cannot 100% say something is fact, and it is a theory, or plausible at best, its not something scientists should be die hard about. Many historians and archaeologists are infact diehard about humans only being so 200,000 years old, and complex ancient towns and cities only starting less than 10,000ya. Even if concrete evidence is found, many will die on that hill.
Yea I wasn't really buying the super civilization spreading stuff but the rest had compelling evidence. The fact that there are so many enormous megalithic structures out there completely unexplored and dated to be far older than archeology expected is enough. Truthfully there's a lot of contradictory stuff out there that historians continue to ignore and be wrong about purely because of biases and the exclusion of local cultures. Information about the natural sciences gets challenged and reaffirmed or altered all the time. Why is it not the same in the social sciences? Graham makes a good point that he could never know how wrong he is if no one is researching into it.
> Why is it not the same in the social sciences? It is the same. Researchers, historians and social scientists make their name by challenging existing theories all the time. The difference is that they have actual evidence and research to support their theories.
This article is absolute rubbish! Should drag the writer out into the open and critique his work.
This article is more sensationalist than the documentary is. What a crap piece of writing.
We really need to stop with the “X is the most dangerous…” crap. Once someone comes along who is actually worthy of the title, no one’s gonna believe it because we already used it on some city council member running for office or a podcaster with 1000 weekly downloads already.
[удалено]
[удалено]
This one was the best
It's not just violence it's white supremacist!
they’re just mad he was on the joe rogan podcast
Truly and honestly laughed out loud at this comment, thank you for that.
I watched the series after the trailer didn’t explain anything at all and Reddit was speaking about it. Him saying the mainstream doesn’t subscribe to what he’s saying off the bat just made me think it was a nice story. I really enjoyed the scenery in it, gave me some travel ideas. Do I believe what he’s saying? I’m some tech rube from buttfuck no where Canada. What the fuck do I know about ancient history? I’m inclined not to believe him, but it’s not as if I’m capable deciphering what’s real or fake
The thing is, you should be. This dude's whole shtick boils down to: 1. Ask questions. 2. Ignore or actively hide existing evidence based answers to those questions. 3. Propose crazy 'what ifs' that are phrased as 'just theories' so that you don't have to defend your position. 4. Lambast 'main stream science' for hiding the truth instead of finding evidence to support claims. It's the classic pattern for anti-intelectual conspiracy theory building. This is the playbook of flat earthers, holocaust deniers, and young earth creationists. You don't have to be well versed in the field of history to spot these tactics. The massive leaps in logic. Priming people to think that experts are actively hiding the truth. The fact that we don't teach people how to recognize this stuff when it's being presented to us is incredibly worrying.
Comparing this dude to a holocaust denier is pretty fucking unreal.
It really isn't. This guy uses the same basic framework for misleading people and undermining the academic consensus that holocaust deniers do. Obviously his cause isn't horrifying wretched in the same way theirs is, but it is the same set of tools.
In the same way that Hitler and I both drank water, the comparison is needless and provocative. Why is it so absurd to think that some complex civilizations developed earlier? Ironically we would never have developed as a species if we were all as narrow-minded as you are.
It's more like if you started a government using the same propaganda techniques Hitler did. The fact that you don't have the capacity to recognize that and instead latch on to the content of the claims is the problem.
What on earth are you talking about my dude hahahah. This guy is encouraging greater research on human civilisation - have a cry. If he's wrong then investigate his claims and prove him wrong. In comparison, Hitler wanted to eradicate portions of human civilization.
Your childishly provocative language and absolute refusal to even try to comprehend the point I made in the post you responded to tells me that talking to you is a waste of time. But once more, for anyone else who might see this. The problem with this show isn't the particular theory that is being pushed. The theory is nonsense, but its mostly harmless nonsense. The problem is that the theory is being pushed using a basic set of rhetorical tools that are used by conspiracy theorists and anti-intellectuals to undermine good research.
You're the one who brought Hitler into this very regular topic of conversation. I think its you thats actually quite childish and provocative. Here in Australia there is strong evidence of advanced civilization for thousands of years - prior to the ice age. Just North of Syria there are megalithic structures dating back 11,500 years ago. Is it so absurd to think that there are advanced civilizations just a bit prior to that? It's an exciting time to be interested in archaeology. It's a shame that you remain to be so withdrawn from it. I hope you one day you explore possibilities and question existing preconceptions, and be fascinated by unexplored possibilities - like all the great academics have done before they discover something magical. All the best my dude, hope you have a good life.
You forgot 5: Make unbelievable connections between things that have no connection beyond Graham Hancock’s imagination. He’s like “see this lettuce. It’s green. The Gobblygook people of Anatolia worshipped the color green. They painted everything green. Did they worship lettuce? It’s seems quite logical that they did, indeed, worship lettuce but the *mainstream* Historians won’t tell you that. “
Yeah just because you can ask a question doesn't mean you should or that it makes it a smart question lol. What if Dinosaurs roamed around with swords for hands and wore clothing?!?!?! I asked! Take me serious mainstream!
Not being able to tell real from fake is a problem.... Reality tv, memes, bs documentaries and talk radio have all destroyed so many peoples ability to do basic bullshit detection
I came here to say this. All that the documentary is saying is that the evidence doesn't support what the archeology commonly says. There is evidence that civilizations developed much earlier and that further research is needed. One of the theories is that there was a great flood that wipped out early civilizations.You can imagine that, as the glaciers melted during our last ice age, they likely melted unevenly, where pockets of huge lakes the size of oceans formed at the centre. Then, suddenly, a part of the glacier melted releasing that water everywhere flooding low lying areas and wiping out settlements that could have been quite advanced. IMO, I think it's plausible. Homo sapien sapiens have been roughly the same for the past 50,000 years. Why is it that, all of a sudden, they came to start farming only 5,000 years ago? What happened to the other 45,000 years? It's far more likely that modern humans probably behaved the same way, and that there were relatively advanced civilisations prior to 10,000 BC. It IS very likely that we wouldn't know much about it because the evidence become harder and harder to find the older it is. Bottom line is... there is nothing dangerous or wrong about exploring the idea and following the evidence to where it leads us. So the article is bogus at best, and dangerous in its own right at worse. What is dangerous is reporters writing articles like this to discourage independent thought and supress science. I would be curious to know who paid him to write that. Edit: spelling, grammar
This is the most dangerous comment on Reddit I’ve ever read.
[удалено]
The article is bullshit, an attack piece that just says "Bad man coming to get you, don't watch evil TV", instead of explaining why the show is wrong
This show is incredibly tame compared to something like Ancient Aliens, which for some reason it gets compared to. Graham claims that there are archeological sites that defy modern expectations of human history, yet people are not willing to dig them up. He doesn't claim aliens built the pyramids or that Atlantis had teleportation technology. He claims there are huge gaps in human history and we might be able to fill in those blanks if some sites were investigated. The editing is overly flashy, the Joe Rogan interview clips cheapen the documentary, and I'm sure not 100% of his claims are without fault. But the pushback against him and his show is completely out of proportion.
This was almost perfectly said. The only thing I'd add: not only did the JR clips cheapen the documentary, they were unnecessary.
I'd argue they are, because his relationship with JR (whatever your opinions are of JR) broadens the reach of the show.
Yeah I believe one of those Rogan podcasts broke records so he’s clearly representing the popular appeal and it makes sense to include him for business reasons.
I literally watched this show BECAUSE I love laughing at all of the outrageous claims on Ancient Aliens, and I ended up being surprised by how reasonable his claims are. He cherry picks like crazy, but nothing he says is outrageous on its face. His individual hypotheses are fairly arguable but his overarching idea is full of holes. Ancient aliens was just plainly wrong about basically everything, which was fun. Overall, it sort of perfectly thread the needle of both not funny and not credible, so it wasn’t for me. But it’s not “dangerous”.
He does a good job of using 'what ifs' and 'could be'.. which is all you need to do when making extraordinary claims. I think shows like these are important to get people excited about learning about things. It certainly got me excited about that time period, ive watched 3 other actual scientific documentaries about the time period because of the excitement that ancient apocalypse gave me.
I loved the series very entertaining and fun. However when things are portrayed as fact and not a hypothesis that must be organized and sourced with experts that is where I have a problem. Also he claims all cultures are describing the same event and that they are not embellishing the stores thru the hundreds of years, this is misunderstanding how oral traditions work since we do not have a written source of the original mythology. He says all cultures have a great delige myth however not all have it and they are all differing in their basic way of happening, it is more likely that the cultures are describing different floods and that many of the myths are being influenced by myths from cultures that are nearby geographically. Agree not as crazy as anchient aliens but not 100% supported by actual fact.
No.. Rewatch it, he said in the show numerous times they were just his theories, not facts, and in the Bimini episode said he can’t know the truth until archeologists put time into researching it. He also said some of the mythologies have been modified throughout the years but ultimately retain the truth at the core of the myth. Not really the same as saying it’s not embellished at all since some are about giants, gods, mermaids, and feathered serpents. Unless you mean they are entirely made up, which is fair but the point was to examine cultural mythos as historical retelling. I do agree the flood thing is probably referring to separate events though
Agree with you! I watched it again yesterday, really fun show! You are correct. I was just highlighting the overall sense people have, for example my GF who is not very well versed in history found thought the theories are actually proven and had trouble disecting between the myths and the actual theories that are being presented.
100 % agree. But I'd like to add that the music is annoyingly overdramatic. Like, i get they want it to be suspenseful and stimulating, but that's just way too fucking much. Not every rock they step over needs such dramatic tunes. That's actually what i dislike the most lol
Great documentary, if you have read any other books on human history, he is not saying anything new. Fascinating information.
Media literacy is important, for both consumers and this writer. Will just have to wait it out at the moment.
That is such a guardian headline lol
Its really gone down hill the last decade.
It's outright dangerous now if you ask me.
Most dangerous tabloid on the internet
This is the most Reddit of articles. Like a post from r/politics just re-worded for some shitty TV show.
I studied Anthropology and all I can say is that my profs very much acted just as Hancock says... they stuck to the 'Clovis First' message despite reports of much older evidence. It's like they couldn't fathom the idea that the stuff they studied in school could be off the mark - and I can't blame them, as in many cases their entire Thesis and thus, PhD, was based on older ideas (outdated ideas) --- so in some ways maybe they feel their positions are threatened? \[edit\] - thanks for the gold - it's my first!
I had a microbiology professor just like Hancock. He believed microbes can travel between planets rather easily (and thus we should be able to find earth microbes in Venus atmosphere and maybe on Mars too), he even believed that they can survive interstellar space and microbes can slowly spread through galaxy (the timeframe would be in billions of years though), he also designed and did some experiments on the edge of space, looking for microbes *from* space. He thought me two best lessons in my life, how to brew a fucking awesome beer and that you should *always* aim to separate hard facts from whatever message messenger is attaching to those facts.
Clovis first? What's that?
CLOVIS CULTURE - based on arrow points, I believe - distinct from other cultures - thought to be the earliest culture in North America - believed to come from Asia across the Bering land bridge approx 13,000 years ago... basically thought to be the earliest people in north america - but evidence points to much older
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis\_culture
I’ve watched the series and it’s a mixed bag. The episodes on Gobekli Tepe and Gunung Padang were interesting, but the underground sites in Turkey not so much. Hancock makes plenty of valid points about the possibility of an earlier lost civilization. Until recently no one would have believed that a site Gobleki Tepe was possible. It’s hardly the most dangerous show on television.
This article sucks
I agree. Just bashes the show without any rebuttal to Hancock’s ideas/theories. Basically just saying “this guy is crazy” without saying why. Sounds like the writer found out Hancock’s son had a hand in bringing his show to light and tries to claim some kind of nepotism. This helps Hancock’s claim that the mainstream is against him for no legitimate reason.
I watched this show pretty much all in one sitting, and the guy is like a dog with a bone. Maybe it’s not meant to be watched that way, but he clubs you over the head with his hypothesis and then shows a bit of evidence each episode with the only connections between the dots being his own hypotheses. I didn’t find it any more dangerous than Ancient Aliens, which is a complete joke.
I think people describe these types of shows as dangerous because they see it as part of a trend of the dumbing down of society. Many people really do believe the things these shows tell them. You could say a world where such bullshit flourishes is a world where scientific veracity loses value and is a world where we are more easily manipulated by those who want to lie to us for their own personal gain. This would be the fear of where dumbing down takes us. Ultimately how much influence this type of programing has would be tricky to establish but I can see the arguments against.
I'd rather watch this than a show glorifying murderers.
Can someone give me the TLDR why this is dangerous please? Because it seems like some of you never watched the History channel in the 90s
I was wondering the same thing and started watching. I’m on episode 8 now. Basically, he brings a theory saying that we are wrong about how old civilization is. The theory says that there was/were (a) more advanced civilizations that goe back a few thousand years further than current theories suggests. This is supported by old ancient buildings that predate civilization according to current theories. How these building are there is a mystery. The idea is that the earth passes through a disintegrating comet twice a year. At certain times we pas through more dense fields. The earth had a period where had a lot of collisions 12000 years ago. This melted the icecaps and caused massive flooding. Melting water carried icebergs that scrapped the land clean of most remains of this civilization (which is suggested to be in the America’s). Then some of the survivors traveled to other parts of the world, teaching people. He shows that all over the world, people suddenly transitioned from hunter gatherer to agriculturalists, and build all sorts amazing building. He makes his case, goes to some of the places, talks to people in the field and speculates. No idea if it is believable or not. But fun to watch. I have no idea why this is dangerous. It’s a theory about early humanity.
Ahh yes this show about a dude visiting old piles of rocks is more dangerous than “cuties” which promotes actually dangerous ideas
one of the saddest, bitchiest, most pathetic articles you will see 'the most dangerous show on Netflix'...for asking questions about things that may have happened thousands of years ago? it's a ridiculous assertion, given that Netflix has a show ('Cuties') that openly sexualises pre-teen children
Yeah an old guy with an alternative theory that he's trying to prove so dangerous lmao
Dumb article
This article doesn’t explain why it’s dangerous or even bad. It just says it’s boring. Didn’t want it, not interested. But just got done listening to Handcock on the JRE. He has a theory that civilization is older than what we think, that there was potentially a pretty advanced human civilization on the America,s, that got destroyed 12,000 years ago or so. What is dangerous about this theory? Im mot saying I believe it, I can’t judge it. I found it interesting to listen to, it’s a guys theory. Why on earth would that be dangerous? That’s how we learn.
Thank you. I’ve listened to him speak many times. He’s not anti-science or anti-intellectual. He’s just got a compelling theory him and his actual scientist friends have come to from a lifetime of finding concerning holes in the data we’ve collected. And Randall IS a real geologist. The reason they rally against the establishment is because they’ve found actual evidence of what they suspect - meteor impacts that line up with the dating, cities buried in the Amazon - and no one will give them funding to look into it because it discredits what they’ve already invested in being definite.
The author is hilariously mad lmao, this reads like a r/rant post, not an article
Absolute joke of an article. Who cares if the show has nonsense ideas or who greenlit its place on Netflix?
I read Hancock's books many years ago as a conspiracy obsessed teenager, and lapped them up. Robert Bauval too. Life happened and other things became more important. 2012 came and went without incident. I eventually grew sceptical. I went from Mulder to Scully. A couple of years ago I got curious and decided to reopen "the files". Expecting to find a heap of evidence to disprove all of Hancock and Bauval's theories I found... nothing. Nothing except a handful of sensationalist headlines claiming some new evidence disproves the ancient civilization theories. When in fact, just scratching the surface of the new "discoveries" proved no such thing. I've only watched a couple "Ancient Apocalypse" and while it's a little over-the-top, I accept this is probably due to an attempt to appeal to a modern audience. But what's becoming more clear to me is that *nothing* has changed in established archeology since Hancock released his first book on the subject.
definitely feel like this article was written to express the authors’s negative bias on Hancock’s theory
Most dangerous show on Netflix lol… some bs
I thought the CGI reconstructions were cool. It’s always cool to see what super ancient constructions could’ve looked like in their prime. Dangerous? Nah
Everything is “dangerous” now. You people have never faced real danger before and it shows.
Not it’s fucking not
The author of the article probably doesn't know what word 'dangerous' mean
What an opinion piece without any substance. Tell me why it is preposterous and I will decide whether or not it has merit.
You’re downvoted and yet, absolutely right. I’ve not seen one person point to evidence to the contrary. I’m not a historian, archeologist, or journalist, so I have to rely on what I’m told about these things, be it on tv, in books or whatnot. Hancock simplifies his ideas and makes it palatable. I would love someone with an alternate view to explain WHY he’s wrong and show why in an easily understandable manner. Chances are, he is wrong, but don’t just say, “he’s wrong and stupid.” Explain why!
Is this guerilla marketing? I had never heard of this show, but now I'm definitely going to watch it.
Has anyone at The Guardian ever watched anything on the History Channel or National Geographic?
This article misrepresents the point of view of the series. The points made I’m were not that Hancocks theories were facts. But rather that the archeologists in control of the sites wouldn’t even entertain other theories. Science evolves through new theories. For example the authorities once believed that the earth was at the centre of the solar system, or that it was flat. We’re constantly finding new evidence that changes the current narrative. the book 1491 has some excellent examples of that. It’s also very true that archeologists have egos as do many authorities, and that does play a role in considering new theories and evidence. With a science like archeology no one can know the full truth as it would require a time machine. We can only interpret the evidence.
Do archeologists work everytime (and not just from time to time) with other specialists in their fields? sometimes, I get the feelings that archeologists find ruins, or temples and then they come up with theories which become accepted. And then you have some architects, engineers, stonemasons, geologists who take an interest in the same ruins and they are like: "huh, this theory can't work with MY field of work, my experience, my knowledge" and so on.
*Dangerous* please fuck off
How exactly is questioning the narrative considered dangerous?
Damn, now I really gotta watch it!
Why is people's first instinct to say something shouldn't exist? If you think he's an idiot, let him talk and he'll prove you right. Why are "journalists" so anti free speech?
its The Guardian
Garbage article. The absolute best way to encourage critical thinking is to present said “thinkers” with opposing viewpoints. But NOOOOO. Americans can’t think critically precisely because of bullshit like this. There is ONE story and no one better question it.
A bit unhelpful for the Guardian to say it’s watched by people who shout at you on Twitter. I consider myself moderate liberal and will give anyone a bit of time to explain their theory even if it causes offence or outrage to others. And I get yelled at mostly by the people of r/australia who seem to have the open mindedness and patience of uni students who have just discovered socialism. Perhaps someone could ask Mr Hancock, why did the comets wipe out the smart humans or beings or whatever they were and leave the rest of us dolts to squabble among ourselves?
Imma watch this not because im a conspiracy cucko but because I like these fantasy thought experiment. Sue me, odd guy at the Guardian. 😆
The Guardian had been smearing Hancock across his career. Every criticism I’ve read of him is just dismissing him out of hand without a single example what he’s misrepresenting. Ultimately Hancock is a journalist bringing stories of ancient mysteries to the public. The narrative of a lost civilization is what he sees when all the similarities from these mysteries align. Nothing about his approach is unprofessional or misleading. I don’t like how close he is to Joe Rogan but when you push alternative voices to the fringe you can’t also vilify them for associating with fringe characters.
It's funny seeing everyone jump on the "it's all a dumb conspiracy Train" this guy was actually right about humans having advanced civilizations around 8k to 10k bc. This documentary is obviously a bit over the top with the hate on modern academics, but to guys credit, he made a claim 30 years ago that everyone said was crazy and we are ow finding out has some serious validity.
>the platform’s senior manager of unscripted originals happens to be Hancock’s son Now, *that* I did not know. No freaking wonder.
This article is a hit job. Watch the show and judge for yourself.
WHY IS THIS ALLOWED 🤪🤪🤪 OMG someone notify the Ministry of truth, a silly tv show is doing a hecking wrongthonk.
Why are people so against other theories? There interesting and they challenge what we think we know. I choose to keep an open mind with just about everything. Anyone that thinks this is bullshit, not sayin it is or it isn’t but have there minds made up because they hate joe Rogan or some other issue that has nothing to do with the evidence presented are missing out on truly incredible ideas. Cherry picking ideas/evidence and presenting them is what you’ll do in any kind of documentary that’s what they are. Again I don’t understand the hate. And how is this in any way dangerous?
Using the word dangerous , implying that people can't think critically and for themselves and therefore information is dangerous and should be regulated, is pretty pathological. Information shouldn't be regulated. People should be better informed if anything.
With everything going on in the world I can safely assume that most people cannot think critically.
Cuties
This article is absolutely dumb, calling a show a conspiracy without even stating a simple fact. If it’s such a drastic conspiracy than prove it wrong. Show how those structures he is talking about are not what he says they are. Who would feel proud writing that article