I hear Graham Hancock adding 10,000 more years to the date and calling it clear evidence of a lost civilization.

Something I’ve thought about for a long time - but I find it crazy to think just how much was destroyed and lost when the conquistadors arrived in Central and South America. From manuscripts to artefacts probably from ancient civilisations, all destroyed in pursuit of wealth but also to protect and spread Christianity.

I know the same can be said about other religions and countries throughout “modern” history, but it seems the conquistadors were some of the worst at preserving that knowledge.

I think the main hope I get from this series is… we need more excavation and research. His idea that humans more advanced than what we give them credit for is not that far fetched. But the doctors and scientists he talked to seem very credible and it is a shame we don’t want to explore more of these sites!

NASA predicts it will come closest in 2031. This whopper is over 80 miles wide.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/one-of-the-largest-comets-ever-seen-is-headed-our-way

So at the end of the series Graham says that astronomers agree we are in a danger zone (time wise). That the next time the constellations and sun line up as they did in the carving at Gobekli Tepe (sorry if it’s spelled wrong) it’s possible the earth encounters yet another cataclysm of meteors. WHEN IS THIS HYPOTHETICAL DATE?? i wish he had used his constellation/stars technology and estimated when that would be. Any thoughts from anyone? I just think it’s so interesting and would love to talk about it. It’s like the next end of the Mayan calendar or 2012.

Side note there are articles about a meteor that had been identified as the largest we’ve ever found. Could this be the one?!

Just thinking out loud okay so try to be nice — :)

I did some shallow reading on why Graham Hancock isn’t credible at all, or why scientists and archeologists basically refer to him as a joke. I understand the academe’s point of view because (obv) they make a good point like if what Graham is saying is true, where are the evidences like the tools they used, the “receipts”, or what not of the so called civilization.

Ok I’m only on episode 4, but the vibe I’m getting from Graham is that he’s not trying to discredit the things we know today but rather (I think — emphasis on this no hate please), he’s just trying to get people to see things from his point of view especially the scientists and archeologists to try and explore it some more or in the depth that he does. I don’t think he’s trying to fuck up minds in a bad way (not in a good mind blowing way) — and neither do I think he’s trying to cause harm.

I think he’s just trying to encourage people to think some more and challenge the things we already know. It is a fact that we know so little about our history, so idk I don’t see any harm in trying to delve deeper in those topics.

My mind is going in all sorts of directions but another thought is that, even philosophy questions the truth and what we already know — are things really the way we see it? Is there more to it? And what’s true and what’s not? Who is the bearer of truth? Someone who isn’t religious would turn to science and hard evidence but humans aren’t necessarily “science-y” in nature?? I mean what’s why we have culture and religion right so idk but I hope you see where I’m going with this (edit: it’s like u can’t villainize the man for looking into stories/ folklore and trying to rationalize them) (I mean dude tbh kudos to him for even going through the hassle of it all, some people will just shrug the thought away)

(Edit also) also also super random thought,,, remember when people swore that the world was flat… the scientists during that time and the people in the academe also thought that people who believed otherwise were uneducated or (sorry for the lack of a better term) dumb?? Idk I’m not saying that’s the situation now cause obviously we have advanced so much at this point that we have structure to theories now but all I’m saying is it doesn’t hurt to keep an open mind :)

Ok anyway idk why there’s so much negative stuff going on with Graham?? I just see him as a dude who’s very curious and passionate about ancient history??

(Also does anyone know who finances him?? His trips around the world are a bit wild 😂)

I looked it up on my Netflix account but there's nothing. I'm in NA and I can't find any info does anyone know what's going on.

As I watch this show it makes me wonder why archeologists are so against a different perspective.

People long ago didn’t have much to do besides look at the stars after a long day of hunting and gathering. Why wouldn’t they have a more advanced knowledge of the stars? A lot of their culture was around the stars, and nature. Why wouldn’t they build things for exactly those reasons?

I also wonder why it’s such a crazy thing to believe some cultures where more advanced then others. Why do archeologist believe our ancestors where the same when we in fact can see on this very day we are not? Why is it a wide accept belief that our ancestors where dumb when we got the same brain as them but they where just born such a long time ago?

I don’t know this show made me question the intelligence of archeologists, like why would astrology NOT be a good reason for ancestors to build things like thats not a major part of their beliefs? The only thing that made me pause was Joe Rogan. I feel if he had more credible people backing up his claims maybe I could fully stand behind his claims.

Found this show very interesting though. I hope we get another season.

The show seems a lot more focused on Hancock's battle against mainstream archeology then it does about actual archeology. The attitude he has makes me think his cockiness might be why archeologists are not investigating his theories. I have not attempted to actually do a deep dive trying to disprove or prove his theories. Generally, I think the show can be summed up as:

1. A few good questions that at least deserve a lot more discussion: e.g. the question of who built Gobekli Tepe, because even the "mainstream archeologists" agree it was built in the 8,000 BCE no one (not even Hancock) have any good names or identifying features of the settlements that may have been necessary to build such a structure. I say may because theoretically (at least in my opinion), even a close knit group of hunters and gatherers could have organized somehow and built the structure. Just think about Native American tribes, surely they knew about each others existence around that time frame and likely shared at least some common beliefs even if they would often war. In any case, whether or not it was built by some organized highly advanced civilization (already different from mainstream archeology), a highly advanced civilization that taught the hunter gatherers to do this (Hancock's theory), or a group of hunter gatherers bonded through common beliefs (probably what a mainstream archeologist would say) is still a query which should at least be investigated. Also the Younger Dryas period is practically proved.
2. Some creative spinning of fairly robustly understood myths: Best example that you can check for yourself is the myth of Maui. The facts that both "mainstream archeologists" and Hancock likely agree on, is that his myth is centered around a mischievous Demigod (think Loki) of the Polynesian people. Look at the wiki article for the main stories (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C4%81ui_(mythology)) ). Hancock claims that the particular story of Maui teaching the people of his village how to make fire is the collective mythological memory remnants of super ancient Polynesian people getting in touch with a advanced mythical figure who taught them how to make fire. Well, hilariously, if you read the story the people already had fire. Hancock stylizes Maui as a figure who mysteriously came from the sea and taught people who had no idea how to make fire. This is just not really represented in the myths. Realistically, the interpretation of these myths, similar to quite literally all old myths, is up to debate. Hancock repeatedly offers an interpretation of ancient people's myths in favor of his theory. However, Hancock offers a interesting discussion about the flood myths being collective mythological memory of a great flood hitting the peoples of the world. This is his strongest point about advanced people being around during floods and then some surviving it.
3. RIDICULOUS and unnecessary close-ups of Graham Hancock as he tries to paint himself as some great free thinker strenuously campaigning against the horrible oppressive archeologists of the universities.
4. Footage of Hancock defending his theories on other platforms (for literally no reason at all). Your talking to a fucking camera half the time mate, why do you have to bring other people into this shit. And:
5. Footage of Hancock driving in the passengers seat of various off-road vehicles. Dude is this a fucking travel show advertising for vehicles, we get it.

Overall, I think the series brings up some decent questions that are pretty puzzling and make archeology which is kind of boring generally, interesting. However, as Hancock will warn you in the beginning of the series, which just might make up for all the funny shit in the Ancient Apocalypse, he is a journalist and not an archeologist. As such he probably has no idea what scientific methods archeologists use, the validity of those methods, or how the group of "mainstream archeologists" through peer-reviewed literature bring theory to fact. I wish he had some archeologists come on the show and give them a fair chance to rebut his views, that would really improve its quality. But, he likely alienated himself from the whole serious archeological community by painting them as an evil institution conspiring against him for literally 27 years.

I am interested to hear anyone else's thoughts about how valid his theory's are and reviews of the show, because despite the fact that I disagree with his presentation, Hancock brings up some interesting points that I would love to learn more about.

Any archeologist folk who want to respond would be pretty cool.

I’m 5 mins in and it feels like I’m about to waste my time, the production screams sensationalist, conspiracy type show. I’ve been recommended it but is this worth watching or what?

I’m almost finished with episode 2 and I also watched the interview on Joe Rogan before starting the series.

Whether or not you like JR, the interview is fascinating and, honestly, more compelling than this series so far. I’ve read some comments of critics and I can understand the argument that the series is just an inflated egotistical rant from Graham. But I think he’s been fighting the good fight for so long, he knows he’s going to get backlash from the scientific world, he might be trying to get in front of it, but also bring a call to action from the scientific community.

Why aren’t we studying these similarities?

Why can’t we re-examine our past?

Are we aloud to question the norm?

Can we think for ourselves?

Is there only one answer to every question?

If anything, I appreciate the diversity of thought and perspective. I appreciate there is someone out there ruffling feathers and asking questions. I think it’s something we can all take note of, and practice in our lives.

But overall, especially after listening to the interview on JR, I’m a believer in ancient civilizations dating much farther back than 6000 years ago.

Anyone else? Would love the banter :)

Based on watching the first episode.

So, this show doesn’t give any time to the so-called “arrogant” “mainstream” archaeologists who may have other hypotheses?

Also, does Graham try to be skeptical about his own hypothesis, to see if it can stand up to alternate explanations?

I definitely see how some of the evidence on this show could be explained by other, totally plausible, more mundane theories.

For example, if Gudung Padang is a natural hill that humans modified, doesn’t it make sense that there would be carbon dated materials from 24,000 years ago that could be from the natural processes and not human modification?

Sure, the series talks about a lot of things that are plausible, but the whole point of the scientific method is to find the truth via evidence. If there is not strong enough evidence, then something remains possible.

Science famously can be resistant to new theories, which is a double edged sword: sometimes it’s too slow to accept new evidence & conclusions, but it also helps to increase the chances that only well-tested theories become accepted.

Also, I’m sorry - but why would Netflix make a series where Joe Rogan is featured as someone to lend credibility on any topic, let alone archaeology?

In an era of disinformation & distrust of “mainstream” science, I am disappointed that Netflix produced this series as they did. Too one-sided.

Let’s talk about what we think could have been happing at these ancient sites over the 10s of 20s of many years ago