Graham Hancock’s New Netflix Series: Ancient Apocalypse

originally posted by: Tortuga
It was terrible, mostly Hancock wandering about or looking wistfully into the distance. Add in some old guff about ‘mainstream’ holding back the truth.

Ancient Apocalypse' is an often confused, and generally arrogant, attempt to sensationalize history through one person's insistence of a rather ridiculous idea, and his desire to pick a fight with archaeologists, historians, and scientists.

Graham Hancock insists, on the one hand, how archaeologists and scientists all around the world have locked themselves into this one idea of human history, and are unwilling to change their perspective in light of new archaeological evidence.

On the other hand, he takes all the evidence, the myths and legends of diverse cultures, and any facts, hints, and suggestions he can find, and twists them all to fit into his own idea of an incredibly advanced, forgotten ancient civilization while doing exactly what he constantly accuses academics of doing: not being willing to accept anything which defies their own perception.

He has visited some amazing places, found some fascinating links between separate cultures across history, and maybe even come up with a few half-decent ideas about why we need to continue extensive research into our past to better understand our ancient ancestors.

However, the biggest conclusion he has drawn is largely nonsensical. The way he keeps implying ancient humans could not have progressed as they did, to discover agriculture and build large monuments and structures, without the help of some advanced civilization forgotten by history is plain arrogant, insulting, extremely annoying, and rather hypocritical given he accuses archaeologists of the very same arrogance he displays himself.

Huckster

What’s Graham hucking? He’s simply going to ancient sites that no one has any clue when or how or why they were built. Many of which date back to the ice age. Care to expand?

originally posted by: Tortuga

originally posted by: Dalamax

You’d have to buy my book or watch my $20m Netflix show.

I dislike facts and evidence as much as the next bloke but I can’t stand making decisions.

Which do you recommend?

Learn to spot a huckster and move on.

That’s the reason I vote ‘does not serve my will’

Episode 3 was another first for me. In Malta, we have the Ggantija. Which local lore has it that a giant woman built it. Ironically, the temples focus is Sirius worship, just like the Egyptians.

I’ve always heard talk about the Hypogeum. Interesting, how most books and shows regurgitate the same sites over and over.

This is refreshingly new.

Episode 4 was Bimini Road. We all know this one. However, diving underwater, Graham and team discover many of the stones have leveling stones beneath them. Massive stones literally elevated off the sea bed.

For all the naysayers, Graham is bringing NEW quality content to mass audiences. This is long overdue. Get over your preconceptions of our ancient history.

There’s good news to boot! It’s far more thrilling than what we’ve been told….

a reply to: Perfectweaponinc

I love the way he claims that humans have amnesia.

What else do you think would transpire through 1200 years of absolute mayhem brought on by the Younger Dryas events?

Also interesting about the ‘Masters’ that were dispatched all around the globe after the last major catastrophe, to educate mankind. You can’t deny these myths global-wide.

I first heard of Hancock on Joe Rogan's podcast a few years back. Read his book etc... and he makes some really good points and I like his theories.

My only query is why wouldn't any archaeologist want to find out if humans were older than believed, or that there could have been another civilisation that was wiped out?

I can't wrap my head around why they won't re-investigate places when something shows up on a scan that wasn't available during the initial explorations of a particular site?

OH Kick ass, thank you

I really enjoyed his
Fingerprints of the Gods
Magicians of the Gods and
The Mars Mystery

a reply to: KKLOCO

originally posted by: Stuey1221
I first heard of Hancock on Joe Rogan's podcast a few years back. Read his book etc... and he makes some really good points and I like his theories.

My only query is why wouldn't any archaeologist want to find out if humans were older than believed, or that there could have been another civilisation that was wiped out?

I can't wrap my head around why they won't re-investigate places when something shows up on a scan that wasn't available during the initial explorations of a particular site?

Because most archeologists incorporate their religious beliefs in their research, AKA Zahi Hawass.

And then there’s the fact that TPTB know the ancients used hidden esoteric knowledge. They don’t want us plebes having our hands on that. It would be a paradigm destroyer and utter loss of power and control for them.

SPAM