Anthropology Graduate REACTS To Ancient Apocalypse | Responding To Graham Hancock's New Netflix Show
Vložit
- čas přidán 8. 09. 2024
- In today's video, I will be reacting the new Netflix series Ancient Apocalypse starring Graham Hancock. As an anthropology graduate who has studied archaeology, I was shocked by some of the arguments made in this show...as well as the lacking evidence that came with them. Ancient Apocalypse explores the possibility of an ancient and highly intelligent society that does not appear within the archaeological record. What are your thoughts on the show? Let me know in the comments!
Who am I? My name is Alivia Brown and I am a recent UCLA Anthropology graduate on a mission to find a career that I love. My major does not have a straight forward "path" as many would say and I am not only determined to prove that I can be successful in my major but also demonstrate my ability to find a career that brings me joy. This is my journey to expanding my global and anthropological knowledge. This is my journey to finding the best career I can. This is my journey to finding happiness. This is my journey to success.
UCLA Anthropology:
anthro.ucla.edu/
Want to support me?
ko-fi.com/aliv...
CHECK OUT SOME OF MY OTHER ANTHROPOLOGY VIDS:
Highest Paying Jobs Part 1: • Highest Paying Jobs Fo...
Sapiens Book Review: • SAPIENS BOOK REVIEW | ...
Anthropology Classes: • CLASSES I'M TAKING AS ...
Careers in Anthropology: • CAREERS FOR ANTHROPOLO...
Sociology V Anthropology: • ANTHROPOLOGY VS SOCIOL...
FOLLOW ME ON GOODREADS!
/ alivia-brown
FOLLOW ME ON INSTAGRAM:
/ alivialaura
Keywords: UCLA Anthropology Classes, Anthropology Major, UCLA Anthropology Major, Anthropology Major requirements, College Classes, UCLA student, Anthropology student, UCLA Anthropology, biological, archaeology, linguistic, college campus, choosing a major, STEM, Math, biology, history, english, social sciences, college junior, UCLA junior, why anthropology, anthropology major, UCLA Campus, Anthropology Career, Anthropology Job, Anthropology Internship, Anthropology Job Ideas, Psychology
Sources:
www.sapiens.or...
en.wikipedia.o...
www.theguardia...
evolution.berk....
www.youtube.co...
• Graham Hancock is the ...
• Netflix hit series “An...
www.themoviedb...
If you would like to help me connect with other Anthropology students, I would love it if you would like and subscribe! It goes a long way and I am hoping to create the best possible Anthropology community. Thank you and stay safe out there!
Did you know I wrote a course on human evolution? 🧬🦍🦧🐒🌱🌳
Check it out HERE: www.socratica.com/courses/human-evolution
Handcock never said he was a scientist. He just opens your thinking there are other possibilities
At a certain point a person repeating they are not a scientist over and over AND OVER again just becomes a justification to talk out of their backside and pretend the methane expelled is profound speech.
From that point they are just throwing darts at a dart board to see what sells to an audience and then producing more.
This is how businesses are run.
Wouldn't you guess it?
Yup, Hancock is running a business, and a VERY successful one at that.
Never trust a person with profit motives to tell honest truth.
"times in history when we think we know all there is to know".. Like soon after graduation.
Not a very good student if that is what you think.
Merely passing a university course requires only a bare minimum of attendance, study and work to pass all the assignments required to gain the qualification.
Most universities recommend that you treat study like a full time job, which usually means that the number of hours spend in classes/lectures is less than half of the time you should be spending studying or bettering your course work.
Classic rookie mistake. 👌🏻 😄
Hahahah!
hahaha nailed it
Wheres your degree from?
I think because of Hancock many ppl now are interested in archeology
Except Hancock isn't an archaeologist, he's a grifter.
Interested but once you start learning the tactics he uses like claiming mainstream science believes slaves built the pyramids, you have to reject him and realize his 'info' is stuff that was taught decades ago and not today.
No because I’m interested I know he’s a joke
He has published works. He has books on Amazon. He has multiple public appearances TV, show expertise given podcasts detailed explanation on the most prominent podcast currently in the US, and he also appeared briefly in a long-standing TV show on the history channel want to many people to do so. he is in no way a grifter if he is a grifter, you are a skidmark liberal who is an expert in absolutely nothing and has never made a public appearance in his life.
Could you please give a detailed explanation on why Mr. Hancock is a joke. Please site specific things he has presented and please offer counter points in detail using facts. Please explain why the placement of the pyramids in Egypt appears into other places in the world within the exact same sequence and arrangement that would be just one example I’d like you to please dissect that using fax then please provide two more examples of why exactly a person appearing on Amazon Joe Rogan on the history channel is a joke.
It's probably easy to dismiss some of the artifacts that Hancock presents as from a higher technology, but the totality of all of the megalithic structures is a big red flag that we really don't understand our past. If you try to wrap your head around the precision of some of these, it's really jaw dropping. How can some surfaces "hand made" by our ancestors be flatter than glass? How were those incredibly symmetrical and very thin hard stone vases made, found at Saqqara? Modern masons say it would be hard to do today with our most accurate laser guided diamond tools. How were the incredibly symmetrical Rameses Statues made? Just too many of these artifacts around to dismiss that humans could have been possibly more sophisticated than we are today, at least in working and transporting 100 ton granite pieces, carving and stacking them with enough precision that you can't fit a piece of paper between them. No one can explain how these could have been made with copper and bronze tools or how giant stone pieces can be quarried from one mountaintop and moved to another mountaintop.
Ruins in Peru were roughly repaired by the Incas and it's been written that the Incas said the base stones were not made by them.
It seems that since we can't explain, we ignore. Hancock is not alone in his questioning. There are many others in the science community who also think many of these structures are way older than what has been published. If humans have been in existence for 300k years, why have we only recently become tremendously more technologically advanced than the the previous 299,800 years?
If the earth gets smashed by a large meteorite tomorrow, solar flare, etc., it'll be rinse/repeat again - assuming we as a species survives.
You nailed it.
Dead on!
As a person with some knowledge of precision machining I find it amazing at the tolerances of the ancient articles. Some that cannot be reproduced today with modern tools.
That's precisely what Hancock is saying.
This is an argument from incredulity combined with an argument from ignorance. Just because someone thinks that a technology more advanced than our own must be required, because we collectively can't currently explain how some of those examples you gave might have been achieved, doesn't mean that that technology actually existed. (Please note that I said 'some' because your list is not as valid as you think it is). I'll give you one example: for more than a century some people believed that the pyramids must have been built by a lost civilisation because no-one could figure our how all those limestone and marble blocks could have been manufactured by the Bronze Age Egyptians with little or no sign of tool marks, but then we worked out that they could be made by cutting with a square-toothed bronze saw fed with granite chips and dust acting as an abrasive, followed by polishing with marble dust. Yet despite that you can find people today who still believe that the pyramids were built by aliens, or indeed by a biblical patriarch as grain stores; please try not to nail your colours to their mast.
If you are one of those who still wants to conclude that there must, must, MUST have been a greater technology than that of 21st century civilisation, you should stop and think about what that implies (this is where confirmation bias needs to be combatted). Look at what it's taken for us to achieve the technologies we presently have, and the marks that has left on our planet: quarries, spoil heaps, mineshafts and galleries, rubbish dumps, plastics in the oceans, radioactivity in ice cores, sulphur and carbon compounds in the skies ending up in the ground and (eventually, by sedimentation or leaching) in rocks. And where does the energy to develop and run that technology come from? We chopped down forests for millennia to burn wood, then in the last three centuries moved to large-scale coal mining, then gas and oil extraction, followed by uranium mining and purification, and now we're extracting rare-earth metals for wind turbines and purifying silicon for solar collectors. Where are the signs of all of that, or a sufficient equivalent, if a significant technological achievement happened once before? It takes about a quarter of a billion years for tectonic activity and subduction to destroy or remove access to those rocks, or for erosion to wear down mountain ranges (and a repeat Carboniferous Era to restore coal and oil). Look also at the population level it's taken for us to uncover the knowledge necessary for our current level of technology, to develop education to the point where the necessary degree of specialisation can occur. And how many people does it take to produce all the food necessary to support the researchers, inventors, builders and users of that technology, not to mention the wider societal changes that comes with it? For most of the ten thousand years since the development of agriculture and the domestication of animals, more than 90% of humanity has had to work the land (99% before towns and cities became feasible six thousand years ago), a percentage that has only changed significantly in the last two centuries (and even then not everywhere in the world).
If you don't or can't address the logical consequences of your hypothesis then your hypothesis is worthless. And as for your question about 'the previous 299,800 years', well, there was this little thing called the Ice Age. And it's still ongoing; we just happen to have left Africa after the last glaciation reached its peak and developed our civilisation once the current interglacial had started.
Doesn't unearthing a 12,000 year old megalithic site move this theory firmly into the category of fact? If not please explain any theory of Gobekli Tepe that logically describes how Neanderthals created art carved in stone. Also anyone who hasn't at least considered the work of David Talbot, Wall Thornhill, and Anthony Paratt, can in no way have considered all possibilities about ancient civilizations.
Hancock morons don’t have even the simplest grasp on what real archeologists actually think
If by "theory" you mean regurgitated output of journal published archaeologists reworded and published for profit in book form long after the fact?
Then yes 😂🤣😆
Also even though we are 100% certain that Homo sapiens sapiens created Gobekli Tepe it does not diminish how intelligent the Homo sapiens neanderthalensis was at all.
We have evidence now from a neanderthal site that strongly suggests that they could manufacture glue - a long way from the primitive oafs we once believed them to be mere decades ago.
No - there is not a shred of evidence that indicate that it should be a worthy theory.
What is his theory? What does he talk about?
Hancock has no Scientific methode.
Dude she can’t , ucla professor Monica smith released her book about “cities: the first 6000 years” not even 4 years ago.
I don’t know which anthropology prof was her’s probably most of them and guess what none got any books out that would benefit from Hancocks ideas. Rather the opposite, many of them would lose the basis for their whole life’s work.
I’m kinda curious whether she’s actually believing in that stuff (let’s be honest most people believe everything their profs say until years after their degree realizing much of it is was bs or based on facts that are no longer true) or if she’s aware of the bias in the field and doing this video as some next level Guerilla kinda move , in which she penetrates the mainstream academic field disguised as one of them - true believers in the one and only narrative that’s still making all of them lots of money with their books - to then turn on them when the right moment appears
Imagine the opportunities for someone who sticks to the mainstream on the outside and doesn’t get disregarded in the field, but secretly researches the Hancock side of things. As soon as new research proves one of hancocks decade old ideas again you can instantly jump on the bandwagon with more knowledge than all of your closed minded colleagues but still got the benefits of being part of the “mainstream”
That would actually be a 200 iq move
Agreed. The human timeline needs to be moved way back to account for Gobekli Tepe.
Literally almost all cultures have a great flood legend. Not just one or two.
Indeed, and their commonality has a very simple explanation.
Floods are much more common than people like Hancock make out.
To the ancients "the whole world" was on average not the Earth globe we know it to be today, not even the whole country/nation that we view them as with modern archaeology.
To the average ancient "the whole world" was likely no more than 10-50 miles in every direction.
Combined with the commonality of settlements along major rivers prone to regular annual flood events (Nile, Euphrates and Tigris to name just 3) and you can see a recipe for greater than normal events of seemingly catastrophic proportions to the ancients.
Add in a dozen or so generations of verbal tradition inflating such events into god sent destruction of mankind, and you begin to find a plausible way for all these flood myths to occur.
Especially when many of them are actually transmitted or plagiarised from an earlier one in a nearby region.
For instance great commonalities exist between the Noah text and the Gilgamesh text, but greater still from both of them to an earlier Mesopotamian flood myth (Epic of Gilgamesh is a complete narrative tying together many older stories).
Add in the fact that even the Hebrew Torah flat out states that Abraham (1st prophet) was from Ur in Mesopotamia and you begin to see how cultural transmission worked here.
My progression for this is:
Sumer -> Semitic language speaking Akkadian empire builds out from Sumer -> Akkadian empire control of Canaan -> Canaanite religion and myth folds into Israelite lore.
Even the Hebrew language itself is just a derivative dialect of Canaanite.
The older Mesopotamian flood myths even mention a place called Shuruppak which existed on the banks of the Euphrates river.
The world has a lot of cultures for you to be saying "almost all" of them have stories of flood...
A lot of them also have stories of animal brides, so i guess the furries are right then!
except they don't. Japan, Mongolia, much of Africa do not. It's not a very hard concept to wrap your head around. Most ancient civilizations were built around floodplains. Floods are common on floodplains...
it's almost like people found it easier to settle near sea's and rivers. They also tend to flood and change... wow shocker.
There are hundreds of cultures that don't have flood stories. If you group cultures together like "Native American culture", but groups in the Great Plains for example don't have them.
Additionally, if there was a giant flood that impacted the entire world, why does that mean its a shared origin point story? Wouldn't it make sense that a lot of different cultures came up with one, since it impacted a lot of them independently?
tbh i only watched a couple episodes of the netflix show, but i'm very familiar with graham's other work.
and tbf to graham, he himself agrees that his assumptions are assumptions, and that the correlations he finds are just correlations, his says clearly that he's sure to be wrong about a lot of his speculation.
those things are different than the more stable and verified findings in several fields that clearly do overturn old narratives about human history. without any speculation, it's factual that the archaeologic findings alone over the last 20 years have shredded those old narratives. humans have been building things, doing things, and exploring earth, for much longer than we used to think. and that we aren't at all clear on exactly how far back that might go and what it might entail.
that's all he's saying he knows for sure, and he's saying any serious academic needs to start accepting that, and he's right.
more speculatively, even from his point of view, is that it was great catastrophes about 12000 years ago that erased a lot of our human history and evidence thereof, and potentially even evidence of a fairly advanced civilizations
his other main passion has always been human rights, and fighting for ppl's right to interact with their own consciousness freely without government restrictions (basically an advocate for psychedelics)
anyway, just wanted to give everyone some context on the guy behind the show. he's a long time passionate advocate for exploring our past, presents, and futures, openly, and lovingly, with open minds and open hearts, rather than closed minds and closed hearts and stubborn academics who refuse to switch paradigms until they're absolutely forced to or till they die of old age lol
Thanks for sharing this perspective-I think it is good for people to hear both sides of the coin
@@AliviaBrown You didn't present any other side of the coin. I'm not even sure what your main opinion was.
Graham Crackpot has been deservedly "ridiculed with howls of derision" for 30 years. If he truly cared about the advancement of human knowledge, he could have become an archaeologist instead of being "permanently stoned" for 24 years. He could have formulated a hypothesis, gathered his evidence, written a scientific abstract and submitted it for peer review.
But, nah. Easier to write books about an Advanced Civilization on Mars with a Sphinx-like structure that was destroyed by a Comet Apocalypse and laugh all the way to the bank. Net worth: $14 million. Nothing wrong with making money.
But merely suggesting that a lost advanced civilization may have existed isn't enough to keep the cash rolling in. Boring...
He upped the ante by "adapting" Ignatius Donnelly's Victorian Era notions of White Atlanteans teaching all the brown people on Earth how to make stuff because it's impossible to believe that those butt-sniffing primitives could have created any megalithic structures on their own.
And not just any possible unknown quasi-sophisticated Ice Age culture.... Nope. It has to be a Lost Advanced Aryan Global Utopian Sea-Faring Psychic Ayahuasca Shamanistic Civilization with Secret Technology -- the size & scope of the British Empire -- who served as the progenitors of all ancient civilizations and as the basis of all the ancient Gods & Goddesses of Mythology.
Also must include Cataclysmic Comet Destruction and Epic Floods of Biblical Proportions. And don't forget the part about Atlanteans building the Great Pyramid with telekinesis.
Not enough? Hancock also bitterly exploits the Anti-Elite zeitgeist, Science Denier Frenzy and Conspiracy Theory Craze in order to constantly play the Victim Card and portray himself as a Rebel Scholar / Persecuted Martyr who is bringing Enlightenment to Humanity as he heroically fights against the Forces of Darkness. Thus, he whines incessantly like a blubbering crybaby about a Sinister Conspiracy of Dogmatic Academic Gatekeepers who are "Hiding the Truth."
But It's all just fun & games. Maybe it starts with Bigfoot, Atlantis, Ghosts & UFOs.... Then the lack of critical thinking skills and unbridled credulity leads to people believing in -- a Flat Earth, Fake Moon Landings, Climate Change Denial, Anti-Vaxxers, Fake News, Alternative Facts.... before graduating to full-fledged Election Lies, Alex Jones, Jewish Space Lasers, QAnon, Stormfront, the Hillary Assassination Squad, a Satanic Cannibalistic Cult of Dems who Sacrifice Children, and the Lizard People of the Illuminati Protocols.
@@AliviaBrown this is such the cookie cutter “I’m a professional student” response. I’m in college in my late 20’s and I see this same exact response on almost every assignment. It’s like you guys share a hive mind.
@@Avogadros_number It's because they do.
The archaeological establishment is EXTREMELY resistant to absolutely anything that has the potential to shake-up established human history as we know it. Not only that but supporting even "niche" ideas will brand you as a complete fraud in the eyes of the entire community.
I've lived in Rome, where the most ancient, most important archaeology faculty of planet Earth is, The Sapienza.
Listening to their 3500 professors, I swear to God, is like listening to a church choir.
Archaeologists will tell you that ancient Egyptians were able to lift and carefully position 70 tons stone pillars a 100 feet from the ground and perfectly position them in-between perfectly matching slabs by "dragging them on mobile ramps with ropes".
It's genuinely fascinating how science-free some of their scientific stances are, defying Newtonian physics and basic laws of motion. Baffling, really.
What you've seemed to miss is that all of the ancient structures addressed here, across geography and millenia have the same underlying template based in the precessional number system / geometry and astrological alignments.
Dead on. Couldn’t have said it better
People shared knowledge and traversed the globe in ancient times. It also seems obvious to me that humans have always worshipped/had reverence for celestial bodies such as the sun which is quite literally the life giver of all of us. Stars and the cosmos are also given reverence and scientific/mystical study the world over, for millenia. Why wouldn't humans be exploring this stuff out separately from each other, to similar outcomes? It's not that difficult to imagine surely.
@@clappedoutmotor I think you forget that we thought people were still hunter gatherers 10 000BCE, they had no way to traverse the globe and learn from all the other civilizations like you say. Also they do represent the sun in myths but the sun is never a god or a deity in itself. It surely represented a higher state of mind or consciousness for them.
No that's all been debunked a long time ago. They thought the great pyramid of Giza lined up with Orion's belt but no.
@@josephl9931 Doesn't the fact that there were humans living abundant lives around the entire planet mean that they did traverse the globe?
I thought the most interesting bits in the series were about astronomy and myth. It's easy to forget (living in our light polluted cities), how important the stars / heavens would have been to our ancestors and how much energy they would have put into trying to understand the cosmos and how / why it seemed to shift over time.
You are so right! Thank you for sharing this perspective! I often forget that too but it really was central for many people long ago. Thank you again!
Honestly, he made it seem like it was strange so many cultures noticed the stars, when it was a VERY IMPORTANT PART OF HUMAN LIFE before smart phones and world domination!
@@coryluskat no he doesn't make it seem like it's strange, he proposes the idea that because the taurid stream came from the sky and the constellations "from which they came" were documented with symbolism and pointers, that they felt the danger was still there and because of this reason they focused more on it trying to understand it better or "warn us", so if they all saw these giant "serpents" rain from the sky and destroy their world, they made note of it through stories and made sculptures to capture the date at which this even occurred
@@coryluskat For quite some time there has been a specialization in archaeology called archaeoastronomy that considers this topic. Pretty much doing the kind of stuff that Hancock and his fans claim archaeologists dont want to do. Just like early archaeologists explored the notion of lost ancient civilizations and related topics like hyperdiffusion.
@@AliviaBrown
James Flynn was intellectually dishonest about Carl Jung. It's a cultural problem. You say confirmation bias. I say intuition.
Another person who just graduated from community college 3 months ago but somehow knows more and has more experience than people who have been studying this for decades, traveling around the world visiting ancient sites. Makes sense
Talking about yourself?
Lmao yup. College teaches graduates what they want them to know… not always what they should know
@@himoffthequakeroatbox4320 troll
@@slappinsteve3852 what do you base this assumption off of? Meaning what makes you say that?
Hancock said so is not a valid answer by the way. All this anti academic sentiment has to have some basis in reality guys, it is just too convienent to criticize blindly that which you have never, will never, and could never accomplish. For hancock that means being published in a peer reviewed and respected journal, for you making this comment I assume that is graduating high school
@@tylerhouston7013 I based this fact off of my personal experience in college in 3 different majors before graduating. Colleges teach you what they want you to know. They don’t teach you everything. This is why a college graduate isn’t considered an expert right out of college. Companies pay colleges to set up developmental classes to help them recruit to their companies. Through this, they will leave out information because it doesn’t benefit the company for you to know such information. Colleges don’t teach students everything because it would negatively impact their profits in the long run. But really this all gets into the way acedemia works. It’s a bunch of grown up kids that can’t listen to another perspective. Graham certainly isn’t right about everything but he does offer a great perspective and when you look into Randal carlsons work, it makes a lot of sense for him to say what he says. There is evidence around the world of a great flood that wiped out a civilization. Evidence in religion, but more importantly, evidence in the massacred landscape around the globe do
Confirmation scepticism. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, are you really sure it is a duck?
I have taken a dive into the ancient civilization stuff in the past couple months. The more I dig the more I realize we don't know anything. It's all just fascinating. And we should never put somebody down for exploring and having ideas
@@LawrenceReitan
A piece of paper just to talk about it, I believe you’re under a grave misapprehension if you are to believe someone without a degree can’t offer a debatable point.
To say something as such would tell of a deficiency in one’s own abilities I believe.
@@LawrenceReitan what a dumb comment. BTW, what is a master? A Master's Degree? I'm sorry, people who don't think about all this are unintelligent and close minded. How could people of 5'4-5'6 with primitive tool's take on granite the way they did? The way it looks like the granite was mud at 1 point. Idk, but a Master's degree doesn't mean someone cannot have an opinion on this subject. We continue to find more and more out everyday.
@@thomasbest8599 you sound scorned, sorry buddy.
@@LawrenceReitan apparently this isn’t needed. CZcams has its on master of none course
What I found interesting about the show was that there is a layer of sediment/ground that was found around the globe which included an element that’s not found much on earth and suggested a meteorite and burning or whatever, plus the layers before that had much more mammoth, sabertooth etc. bones but above it not so much.
Yes, I agree. I havent found anyone online who debates that piece of "evidence". I'd REALLY love a debate on this topic. In fact all of our "science" deserves an open an honest debate because we the people deserve that in order to hash out ideas and purge the bad ones.
Yet analysis of this layer reveals that it is not of uniform age so that would not support the hypothesis of a worldwide simultaneous event.
@@russellmillar7132it is uniform to the end of the younger dryas.
It’s evidence he has accumulated throughout the years. His perspectives have evolved with evidence he has found. That is the opposite of confirmation bias. He has proof for his belief.
Spot on and I couldn't agree more ! I'd just use plural for 'proofs'
I think it's important to have an open mind about things no matter how silly they sound.
Agreed
To an extent yes.
We have to have a shared reality that can only be base in factual evidence.
"Having an open mind" is such a crutch for you whackos man. Having an open mind is very different than accepting a theory as possible that has literally zero hard evidence supporting it.
Ex. You can't disprove that our entire universe is just an atom in a giant space turtles weiner in a swamp made of Swiss cheese. There is just as much proof of this as Atlantis, and it is just as possible, and this does not mean it deserves respect. When you just say outlandish things that belong in sci fi(also that you stole directly from sci fi) and then spend time finding increasingly outlandish ways to make it sound plausible, people do not have to have an "open mind" to your bs. LeBron does not need to accept a 1v1 challenge from every stupid pickup player on the planet, he can simply wait for themselves to be proven to be worthy of his time by making the league
@@tylerhouston7013 I'm not even gonna listen to you people with low intelligence tend to insult people.
@@luxusken05 It seems to me that myths are becoming more and more real... Just like at the city of Troy that we believed was just a myth from the Greeks. Well, turns out it was real.
Hancock has been studying archeological sights for decades and made it his career. He has collected enormous amounts of information and has thoroughly analyzed it to the best of his ability. Personally, I trust the man to state his beliefs based on the archeological evidence. It's about time that Netflix has given Hancock a platform to express his views. Furthermore, now I believe everything the public education system has taught me about ancient history is wrong. I guess you could say that am happy to jettison my previous confirmation bias.
Right. Hancock is a very open-minded individual and has changed his narrative over time as the evidence evolved. He's never claimed to be anything more than a journalist stating that there are more than just holes in our historical time-line, the entire plot doesn't add up. To say he has confirmation bias because he states his opinions on possibilities is to miss his entire purpose of the content he provides.
He's a journalist.
@@Gregzilla83 he literally claims that he has evidence they used either telepathy or vibrations to move giant stones in ancient times.
@@urusledge Anybody with a smartphone and a camera is a journalist. If your point is that Hancock hasn't had formal archeological indoctrination at an "approved" university, so what! He's done extensive research and used critical thinking skills to arrive at his beliefs. The "academics" should get out of the classroom and do their own research before criticizing Hancock's work.
@@douglascain6404 none of his thinking is critical, and you can't call evidence-less assertions and confirmation bias "research."
I read all of Hancock's books since 1995. What he's saying is he thinks there is an invisible third party that was deleted from history by a cataclysm, but a few survivors continued to try to reboot civilization. Using stories that preserve real history and astronomical knowledge. Where possible knowledge was preserved in astronomically aligned monuments built with consummate skill. Everything points to places like the Nile, the Tigris and Euphrates, the Indus, the Ganges, the Yellow river, the Amazon and Mississipi as places where civilization and agriculture could have been successfully rebooted.
This is a great explanation of Hancock's argument-thank you
You seem intelligent and open minded. Have you seen Remembering The End of The World, or Thunder Bolts of The Gods? I believe that the theory set forth by David Talbot and Wallace Thornhill is among the most important, most logical, the simplest and most elegant explanation of the misunderstanding of our distant past as well as the nature of the universe in our present.
@@stevenpipes1555 watched this last night, holy shit
@@vinnyd2764 Yeah it blew me away pretty hard. I tried to poke holes in the logic but the more i tried the more fascinated i became. I have since researched just about everything Talbot and Thornhill have published. If you want to go a little further down the rabbit hole, Check out Thornhills theory of the formation of our solar system and his theory on commets and mars. You may also want to watch Saphire Project, and i have also come to add the work of Rupert Sheldrakes Morphic Resonance theory to my version of their theorys. Thunderbolts Project is a collection of various minds also on board with the plasma cosmology. Happy Researching, this all changed everything i think about whats going on in the world and the universe, but BEWARE, It ruined all other science based documentaries for me, and i cant even watch Ancient Aliens without yelling at the TV any more!
@@stevenpipes1555 yeah i remember watching a banned tedtalk rupert sheldrake gave a while back around the time i found hancock. i've def watched some thunderbolt project vids in the past but had no idea of the origin behind the theory. even if it's all complete bs i love entertaining the possibility. kinda like the anunnaki. at worst it's just an amazing scifi story haha
I have an anthropology degree but it has been awhile since I was in college. I started the netflix show thinking "maybe new stuff has been discovered, obviously there is a lot missing in the time-line". I couldn't get further than half-way through first episode. The drama, the pre determined agenda/confirmation bias, etc. Figured I'd do a little youtube search to see what anthropology thinks and found your video.
Ego ego ego! Hope that works out for you and your human study friends and your wine nights and judgement! I forgot you guys know everything
@@nathanielward8588 Whaaaaaat? 😂
The "drama" is there to be appealing to a broader audience and not only to the experts, it is a given of any entertainment venture that needs to "sell".
An individual with an anthropology degree is more than capable of discerning and separating factual data and actual theories from the usual "escape the matrix" or "they're lying to us" selling points.
A multi-proxy study on late glacial lake sediments of Moervaart palaeolake shows multiple pieces of evidence in various aspects to support Older Dryas. The lake sediment had an erosional surface prior to Older Dryas suggesting a change to colder climate. This is the fulcrum of Hancock's work.
The anthropologic and archaeological establishments have no way to accept or refute this, mostly because they have NO real idea of what happened between 2,580,000 and 11,700 years ago, before the Holocene epoch.
His ideas are so badly formed. There's a reason archaeologists mostly don't respond to him. Honestly we are lucky to have even this much of a response to the nonsense coming from the Hancock's of the world.
I think you made Graham Hancock's point. Culture A didn't tell culture B there was a great flood, they both experienced it.
Or, they had both experienced local floods. If you're living in pre-history, a flood doesn't need to be very big for you to tell stories about how a massive flood came and covered the whole world. Like these folks maybe hadn't traveled more than 50-100 miles from their birthplace.
I think something that was missed in this sub section of the video was that mainstream archaeologists actually deem those stories as myth. For instance in Egypt, mainstream archaeologists look at hieroglyphics as truth up to a certain point and then look at the rest as myth. Of course stories will be told that are myth within any given culture but all graham is saying is “hey now idk if we should discredit the writings from the ancient people as myth just because their stories are starting to get crazy. We have the Bible that is widely accepted as truth(I’m not saying I agree or disagree) but there are similar stories throughout ancient cultures across the world and that is a fact. Just like graham is saying to take a look and he does believe it. Why do we still as mostly unqualified humans tend to decide what is true and what is not? I would have enjoyed the video more if you went into what he was actually saying and not your very subtle jabs at graham being a bit far fetched. OF COURSE HE’S FAR FETCHED!! Anyone with an alternative idea is far fetched until our species decides to try something new and it sticks!!
I’m starting to rant so I apologize but dang even in this video it’s closed off and still a bit snarky in your subtle micro expressions
@@sowellfan Yeah but we know global flooding occurred 11,800 years ago when sea levels rose 400 feet. There are still some settlements underwater.
@@adriangee4272 I've googled a bit, and it looks like you might be referring to the Early Holocene sea level rise (EHSLR), which happened between 12k-7k years ago, which in total was about 100m sea level rise over maybe 5000 years. And part of that was Meltwater Pulse 1B at 11.4k-11.1k years ago, which was 25 feet over 160 years, so maybe 2 inches per year. That's definitely significant, but not at all sudden.
I am still curious about your opinion about gobekli tepi and the ruins in Indonesia that have been dated to be older than 10,000 years old.graham mentioned that aswell by raising the point that according to main stream archaeology,at that time humanity was nothing but hunter gatherers but the ruins suggest that the ones who built them had a good level of sophistication and knowledge.” To build those intricate structures.
I really like your empirical approach to Hancock's series! Personally after watching it, my biggest takeaways were regarding his openness to interpreting what we deem as myth/fiction instead as considerable pieces of an anthropological puzzle. Would love to hear your thoughts on this!
Thank you! I agree with you-it was definitely interesting to take a step back from what we think we know and look at the archaeological record as a big puzzle and reconsider how those pieces of information we have may fit together differently
@@AliviaBrown
It's a shame CZcams censorship will absolutely occlude anything of substance that isn't short and sweet.
@@remasteredretropcgames3312 It's not censorship - it's supply and demand.
The algorithm is designed to detect things which may interest you based on previous searches and funnel them to you so that it ends up being something of an echo chamber reinforcing biases if you are not careful about how you search.
@@mnomadvfx well it’s both, but that also depends on the subject matter, Silicon Valley definitely has a political agenda to follow regarding censorship, but depending on the topic there may or not be a need for censorship in their eyes. IMO there’s no censorship happening in archeology on yt or channels like bright inside wouldn’t exist. But in general censorship is actually a well known reoccurring theme on yt.
But yes for the most part the average consumer will be more impacted by the bias of their own research bubble yt puts them into
It is not controversial, it just is. In the 1990's main stream academia treated Graham's possible eye opening ideas as fake or never happened. But 30 years down the line, his crazy ideas have been validated by main stream scientists who do actual science based on the scientific theory. And using modern tech they have confirmed 90% of his theories. He does not get pinned down by dogma and repeated published lies that are put to students as facts. Thank god real honest scientists have validated his ideas based on logic and common sense. Plus he has traveled the world to visit all these sites that most grad students have only read about. I feel more for the researcher that puts boots on the ground and tests former thought models. Most suckers read what they are told to read, and and present it as fact. Although these main stream people have never gotten their hands dirty. I believe Graham is on the right track. And everything we think we know needs to be researched by modern thinkers, that the governments do not control.
9:29 There is one thing with accepting _some_ single feature could culturally converge.
Thor Heyerdahl, well before Hancock, had made lists of items that were just a bit too many between, for instance, South American high cultures and Polynesia, for "convergent evolution" to be a very great explanation.
Add to this the indigenous stories in Polynesia or some ancestor arriving from a direction corresponding to South America. Then Thor Heyerdahl provided proof that the voyage could be made in pre-modern vessels of types which could be realistically theorised in the area.
9:51 As a Young Earth Creationist, I wholeheartedly support GH on the non-convergent nature of Flood stories.
The main theme from Graham Hancock is not his battle against archeologists; he just wants more non-bias in-depth research on the sites that being discovered. Personally, I think it comes down to religious influences that would be obsolete if ancient civilizations are proven real.
Dont forget he ( Hancock)is not a scientist, he is a reporter/journalist and he is reporting on what archaeologists he is communicating with are telling him.
Yes, very true. He never claims to be a scientist but rather an investigative journalist
Not true at all
@@aprilflanagan4354 what is not true? Fact is that Graham does not say that he is a scientist.
He is more of a book author…
You failed to mention that Hancock has actually visited, studied and analyzed these archeological sights. He doesn't just repeat what other people have said about them. Try to be more honest if your goal is to be taken more seriously.
Graham Hancock was around before the discovery of Gobekli Tepe.... quite how academics still waffle that they know best is hilarious!!
I'm confused, are you really trying to claim that Hancock knows best because he was alive and publishing before Gobekli Tepe was discovered and dated?
His claims back in the 90s when GT was discovered weren't even remotely matching what we find at GT.
The only thing that aligns his written works to GT is the Younger Dryas, which he used as a claim of a cataclysm - which it is not.
The Younger Dryas was just a super short ice age that interrupted the global warming period of about 7,000-10,000 years before hand.
The end of that period was literally the end of the last ice age - which is why we see an explosion of sites around this time when global temperatures had stabilised for the warmer.
Nothing to do with a cataclysm as Hancock was making it out to be.
@@mnomadvfx orthodoxy halted all thought (and funding!) that civilisations were advanced thousands of years earlier - THEY WERE WRONG and pretty blinkered to think they were right tbh. Why not learn from the past, when the KT boundary was shown to be a massive impact many derided the notion because we could not identify an accompanying MASSIVE crater, 14 years later they were proved predictably wrong.... same goes for the YDB currentlly!!.... that impact will be located soon enough!! BUT the biggest folly of the powers that be must be the Ice Age Floods and the decades of derision J Harlan Bretz recieved for making such an awesome discovery!! - "Determining what caused the Columbia Basin’s weird landscape of scablands and coulees generated four decades of bitter scientific controversy. If modern high-resolution aerial photography had been commonplace in the 1920s, the issue might have been resolved quickly and amicably. Instead, geologist J Harlen Bretz had to persuade his critics the hard way."
@@mnomadvfx You will never convince these fanatics. They want to believe in this 'aliens and ancient super-civilizations' fantasies because it is a way to decry the fiend of 'experts' in whom, for various reasons, they have come to mistrust in other areas of their lives - when actually they should be turning their ire upon politicians that they themselves vote for and who have sold them a crock - but that would require admitting that they themselves have been duped and are fallible. Whether the evidence supports or refutes these wild archaeological theories is irrelevant to that. If you are successful, they'll simply add you to the list of 'corrupt Establishment academics' that they warn people to mistrust.
His questions are great and warranted.
I have heard quit a bit of Graham's lectures and the multiple podcasts with Joe Rogan and I feel the netflix show doesn't really present the complete picture of how he came about this.I believe this is mainly due to the fact that it is what it is, a Netflix show! I mean that this has to make money and so it has to stay interesting enough for the general public to keep coming back. A way of doing this is to set the stage in the first show with a bold statement and add on or reveille peaces of the puzzle that shows "proof" of this bold statement, it's how entertainment works. Reality (I think) is that Graham is glad he can use a platform like netflix to reach out to an even bigger audience then with his books and lectures, however he has to do so within the boundaries that the producers give him just so that the preset format of the Netflix show is not compromised. I always understood from him that he didn't really start from the theory that there is an lost civilization in out history and then went looking for the evidence, but that observations of monuments and sites all over the world lead him to take a closer look and after time evolved this conclusion that this could be the case. This idea of people finding or seeing "evidence" everywhere so that they can "proof" their theory is in my believe just non existing and always comes from those that feel attacked by this, and as most of us know the ego is a tough motherf*cker to set aside. I would even go a bit further and state that this is actually what the " real" scientist/ archaeologists are doing, when they find something that doesn't fit the already set narrative it is in many cases dismissed or it was part of some religious thing for the Gods......completely not able to accept the evidence that is in front of them. Take Robert Schoch for example, he is part of the "official "academic world as geologist, he states that using his knowledge and years of experience in this field, that the Spinx clearly shows heavy rain erosion or as he says it, weathering due to heavy precipitation. because this would mean that the Spinx has to be much older than currently told to us, suddenly this guy is dismissed as someone who has no idea what he is talking about and blablabla. So I think the "established science" has showed many more times that they are the one not able to think outside the box and using personal attack instead of having a debate on the content with those that have an other view.......or statements like;"these are pseudo scientist that don't understand the underlying complexity of a specific topic and they have a simplistic view on evidence".......really!? I think that for every person that has common sense and a healthy dose of empathy would realize that these people are preaching what they practice ;-). Science has lost it's credibility so much that it is hard to take serious anymore, I think past 3 years and the ongoing climate debate makes this very clear. However I do like your way of handling the topic and you have good presentation skill's, I enjoy watching the video so for sure I will leave a like ;-). Take care
A very good post, wide awake and aware.
@@Total_Reflex thank you ✌
"Take Robert Schoch for example, he is part of the "official "academic world as geologist"
Agree to disagree.
His conclusions vs many others in his field show an apparent disregard for basic information about the chemistry of Giza limestone geology and its importance to the subject matter of erosion in his work.
I think in common perlance they call that practice cherry picking evidence to support a hypothesis.
He might have letters after his name but I'm strongly dubious of their worth after reading the alternative geologicla analyses by his peers in the field.
Rather than thinking of GH theory as 'complete' from eight 30-min shows, you should think of it as an introduction to the topic. To really understand and learn his theory you need to read his books which as you pointed out are very large. The shows only highlight a very small part of his evidence. In his books he does talk about other possibilities and theories and much more data that could never fit in the 8-part series.
You are absolutely right about this. I bet the information that is present in his books is more thorough and it is easy to look past the 8 part docuseries excluding much of this information. Maybe I'll try to take a look at his books and see how it impacts my perspective...
@@AliviaBrown It is important to keep in mind that even he changes some of his theories as his books progress. One example, in his first book he has a theory that there was plate tectonics the that resulted in Antarctica moving farther south in human time scale. He now does not believe that. You are correct that he does not always consider all other possibilities. Many ancient cultures have stories about the great flood, but also, those same cultures talk about gods coming down from the sky, yet he does not address this and does not believe in the possibility that ET was involved. We all need to look at all information with an open mind.
@@AliviaBrown Start listening today. They're on CZcams for free, and he narrates them, because he's done the work, knows what he's talking about, and cares
@@James-es2lu It's called the "motte and bailey" fallacy, whereby when one ludicrous, completely unevidenced and unfounded claim begins to buckle under scrutiny, you immediately retreat to another, differently phrased one. Rinse and repeat.
You said it ‘you have been freshly TAUGHT’
(by the system)
You are still very young
You are entitled to your opinions but that’s all they really are at this stage in your life.
But you need to remember just how intelligent, knowledgable, experienced & unbiased Graham Hancock is he does Not have any agenda other than discovering & openly discussing the truth.
and selling fictional books
2:00 you keep referencing the believed ancient society to be a society of "highly intelligent" people. I think the point is, in hancocks theories, they are thought to be highly *civilized*, as in, they got technical ability to realize amazing structures with unbelievable precision. Some of them even hard to produce with modern day technology. In my mind being intelligent is a trait unrelated to the membership of a society. At least for a large part.
Hi! You bring up an excellent point. I think it is definitely worth considering what the differences are between "civilized" and "intelligent" really are-to what extent are the different and to what extent do they overlap? I do agree that many of the structures mentioned are incredibly impressive and worth investigating :)
@@AliviaBrown I didn't see the show, did they mention the Richard Structure? That's a site I would like to see an excavation to be done. There's many interesting sites though I hope we are in for some great discoveries within our life time 🙂
A lot of problems can be solved if you throw enough cheap, expendable manpower at them. If they did have things like laser cutters and cranes they were incredibly tidy - they don't seem to have lost one, not even a nut or bolt or spare power connector. Ever.
@@himoffthequakeroatbox4320 I understand your reasoning. I would have thought the same if I didn't dive deep into this topic a while ago. So let me ask you some questions.
I suppose you know about the Antikythera, a rather sophisticated device which can be dated back to 70-60BC. It is in a rather poor condition. There is reason to believe that this was not the only one of its kind, as you don't create such a complex thing without prototypes or predecessors. However, this *is* to date the only one that arrived at us, probably *because* it sunk with the ship and was not kept on land. When the divers took it, it immediately started to dissolve and they had to conservate it. And this thing is "only" 2000 years old. The suggested ancient civilization is thought to have ended 11500 years ago. How much is going to be left after all this time? And we did not yet speak about the comet heat melting away most of the metal structures and the flood taking everything apart.
I doubt we will ever find more than what stands the test of time: granite structures, statues, building blocks, stone vases, this kind of thing. However, many of these objects suggest there was some kind of higher technology involved. Why?
The key point is: precision.
These structures have a level of precision which is impossible to achieve by hand, and not even by hand driven guided tools. You need sophisticated measurement tools to achieve such precision.
Another evidence are machine marks on unfinished building blocks. Another evidence are granite vases with thin walls that must have been hollowed out by some precise, guided machine. Yet the ancient egypts are said to not even have invented the wheel, even less pottery. And making stone vases like this from very hard but brittle granite is a much harder feat to achieve than doing pottery.
A logical conclusion therefore must be: If it exists, there must have been people with the required tools to create it. There is no doubt these items are ancient and once you take the precision into account, there is no doubt that even a 1000 men can not achieve it if they only got chisels and pounding stones in their hands. They won't leave machine marks on unfinished building blocks.
If you are not aware of this kind of evidence I suggest to you the CZcams channel UnchartedX, he covers a lot of the machining evidence. If you want to read about it I can recommend Christopher Dunn who is mechanical engineer himself and reports and evaluates these evidences.
@@sulai9689 "Richard Structure? That's a site I would like to see an excavation to be done"
You'll be waiting a long time even with funding provided.
Mauritania is a conflict zone.
For the same reason we don't know nearly as much about th Cucuteni-Trypillian culture as we could because it was centered in a place that was Soviet ground zero for 44 years and still hot potato with Russia after that.
I was once shown around an archaeological dig by an archaeologist. It was a 7th century (I think) monastery in the north of Scotland.
He was telling me about some of the finds and had been impressed by the large pieces of stone Celtic crosses which had been discovered. Then, pointing at the small Celtic cross I was wearing round my neck, he said that “it was nice to see how these designs are being revived and used in the present day again.” I was quite taken aback and told him that Celtic crosses had never actually been out of use. His answer was that he didn’t really know much about Christianity as he had been brought up in England and had never been taken to church. I was quite shocked at the lack of basic knowledge he had about the subject of the dig he was working on.
I have also noticed how some archaeologists will describe some pre historical objects as having a ‘ritualistic purpose’ when they don’t know what the object is. This is lazy.
As for the evidence of ancient technologies around the world, wiped out by an ancient cataclysm? This seems to make sense. However I do wish archaeologists would involve present day engineers and builders, to get their expert opinion on these type of finds, rather than rely on their own limited (or lack of) knowledge on the subjects of their digs.
There is a field of archaeology called Experimental Archaeology where people try their best to recreate tools and buildings from the past to have a more comprehensive understanding of the process of creating them. Also, the archaeologist you met was likely not the archaeologist who would be writing the report on the site and if they were they would likely have done much more research before publishing/the paper would be flagged in the peer review process do to his lack of knowledge.
@@2006PontiacVibe Yes, I was interested in the Castle they are building in France. It was very interesting to watch and listen to the archaeologists learn from the professionals who are expert in their various fields (the builders, masons, blacksmiths, joiners, and all the other tradespeople).
I enjoy the various BBC TV series which Ruth Goodman has been involved in.
Remember, the only difference between you, Ritualistically sacrificing a bull, and just preparing dinner is an archeologist's interpretation 1000 years later.
Not when the sacrificed bull represents the Pleiades where it visually seems to emanate from. The Taurid Meteor Stream is named after The Taurus Constellation and its radiant is at the shoulder blades. In Gobekli Tepe there is a row of seven birds that represent the Pleiades and recently there was a teenager's grave with two bovine scapula placed over it in a close sister site and temporally coherent. That is two pieces of evidence that there was veneration of the Taurid Stream that bombarded the planet out of the Pleistocene and into the Holocene just before the Tas Tepeler society or is it BBQ-ed beef and chicken dinner? There are plenty of scientific papers proving that The Younger Dryas Impacts Theory did happen leaving extraterrestrial proxies across 1/3 of the Earth at the Comet Research Group's site. In Egypt they would circle the Apis Bull around the temple seven times before sacrifice and Isis and Nefertiti each hold a bovine scapula at the Pleiades. In Saudi Arabia they circle an altar that fell from the sky seven times. In Mesoamerica the sky serpent is from the Pleiades and they would sacrifice to it to avert another destruction that takes away the Sun. I could go on and on, Japan, etc. In Universal Comparative Mythology the commonality is that the Pleiades did it. If myths were just made up, how did the ancients know of a space phenomena that wasn't scientifically known until 1950 by Dr, Fred Whipple? In reality, people who study this think the symbology of the bull is virility and regeneration, having nothing to do with celestial facts. Advanced or not the fire from the sky and deluge did happen ~12,878 years ago and that is his message and no one gets it. Why do we unknowingly dress up as the dead and go out in the streets on the night the Halloween Fireballs (the Taurids) fall?
That's funny, but butchering tends to leave marks on the bones.
@HimOff TheQuakerOatBox Aparently, so does sacrificing. 😅
Well, Graham had to start from a premise based on his findings and belief system and yes, he had to bring arguments to it, what did you expect? He said it many times that the reason he was doing this docu-series is for people to start questioning more and look for more evidence. The fact that we are fed with some information, it doesn't mean it's enough. We must continue to inquire as there is a lot more to discover. I stand by his means.
I stand by his bank accout.
Wait... means! I mean means 😆🤑🤑🤑
I have been trying to find anwers by archaeologists explaining the ancient sites showed by Hancock. All I found were dismissals and critisisms of his method, his assumptions, basically how he can't be right. Nobody has a better explanation.
"All I found were dismissals and critisisms of his method, his assumptions, basically how he can't be right. Nobody has a better explanation."
You literally just described rebuttals rather than academic works.
Believe it or not most academics are not attention seeking blowhards like Hancock.
They publish their hard earned work as research papers in academic journals. which are usually freely avaialble within a year of the publication date.
The problem you are describing is that Hancock is easily accessible, and designed for anyone to read - with lots of nice stories, pictures, tales of psychedelic drug visions and who knows what else to keep his audiences attention going.
Academia is not easily accessible.
If you don't know exactly what to search for on Google it can be very difficult to find specific publications, and even when you do it is boring, methodical data based analysis of investigations written for people like themselves to understand and respond to - not because they are gate keeping archaeology, but simply because the effort to conform their terminology to the laymans experience and knowledge is beyond the scope of simply accounting the evidence.
This is all by design - Hancock is running a business, not a vocational study of the ancient world.
Hancock basically just repackages older work of archaeologists and then spits it out onto paper so that anyone can read it without pretty much any primer learning.
His bank account vs theirs reveals the truth of this.
He's a multi millionaire and has been for a long time.
Contrasted to most archaeologists who are barely making middle class wages for 1000x the effort while Hancock profits from the fruits of their labor in the comfort of his own home when he is not on holiday or shooting the breeze with Joe Rogan.
I really appreciate that you and some other younger professionals in your field do make these videos and comment about what you agree and disagree on in a very polite manner. What I really wish would happen is for some of the big opposers to Hancock’s views and ideas to come and debate with him. Having a face to face dialogue would be so beneficial to both sides! From what Hancock says no one will agree to sit down and debate with him. I would love to see it and I’m sure there are many other people who would as well!
They have and what ends up happening is that there positions are as defensible as his are, or said another way they are as I defendable as his are.
My geologist family member really likes Randall and Graham, he finds what archeologists have done over the many years are the more 'wild ones'
They will never debate him ever. The same reason that the University of Alaska did a study that there’s no way building seven could’ve free fault the way that it did all they did was ban the University of Alaska from social media. No debate no dissection no specificity no detailed explanation on why someone is wrong, this girl has one little plaque on her wall while Dr. Hancock has dozens of books, TV shows appearances podcasts. He was briefly on a long running history, channel series, and people got upset.
Dr. David Miano would run circles around Hancock
He’s right. Modern Academia thinks the ancients just went around building tombs and temples. We somewhere along the way lost a vast knowledge.
The whole point of this video is this lady is calling Graham is biased person who knows nothing, his theories are incredibly flawed, all his evidence are just coincidence and are like convergent evolution. Don't hear him, hear me a educated Anthropology graduate.
Last bit she that she claimed to agree with Graham was just an act that wasn't even needed in this video. She had so much to disagree to the point that topics that she picked is most basics of things.
Graham's stuff is definitely interesting but what I find much more compelling is when he brings in Randal Carlson and his evidence on the massive flood. I did more research into his evidence and it seems undeniable that there was a single massive flood
what time period lmao
there have been several but no major ones have happened in the last 2 million years that we as a species have existed
@@camerus4460 around 12.000 years ago , Younger Dryas Impact Theory
@@camerus4460 you must be living with your head up your hole
Yeah, you seem to think history is 100% linear. And resets aren't possible. Weird.
The most compelling parts of the show were based on considering geology, cartography, and anthropology together. When an academic discipline ignores other perspectives, they get locked into a paradigm. Knowing that there was a global cataclysm with a corresponding sea level rise from the geologic record (excavations and ice core samples), then finding man-made megalithic structures under 150 feet of water is pretty clear evidence that the conventional wisdom that "civilization" started in Sumer 5000 years ago is wrong.
Graham is not a scientist and doesn’t have a scientific theory, He’s a journalist that’s laying out facts, facts that can’t be disputed.
You’re not a psychologist or an archeologist.
Facts are facts. Those structures didn’t build themselves and they date back before there was a known civilization capable of building such structures.
Some people will do anything to get views on their small channel!!
How do you explain Gobekli Tepe, who built it? How? Where did they get the knowledge?
My Brother,
As you can see she doesn't talk about everything the series shows us. Only the things she is able to neglect.
By doing this she generates lots of views and comments like yours and mine, that will push her challenge.
She doesn't mention the old structures and how or why someone back then was able to build it.
I really don't like this guitar boy after this, sorry guys.
Having confirmation bias is not the same as thinking you're right. Graham thinks there's something there and is looking. Your logic would have said Aristotle had confirmation bias for saying the earth is round.
Confirmation bias is only an issue when it is a majority held opinion. This is because multiple people have their reputation on the line and may conspire to keep the status quo instead of being wrong.
10:00 about the architecture, the ones with similarities show up worldwide. Now, the logic of just finding the same solution to a problem makes sense on the surface. The problem lies with us not finding that same method. The tech of those structures is still beyond us today. This is from the engineer's perspective.
Dating: The things we know for sure is 4 things
1. The megalithic blocks are the oldest and most durable structures.
2. Simular methods are all over the world.
3. They weren't done with pounding stones and copper chisels.
4. The sites weren't repaired with the same method, indicating reinhabitance.
I've actively looked for evidence to disprove the idea and ended up finding more evidence of support. We need to studdy this more
Are you suggesting that the Egyptians didn’t use copper tools on the pyramid?
@@BahgdanB Yes. The pyramids are mostly igneous Granite. Moe's scale of 6 or higher.
Copper is a 3 on the moes scale.
Setting aside the Circular and Spiral Tubular Saw cuts into that material. The precisness of the great pyramid and scale of the achievements, physics and engineering it's obvious they didn't.
@@AthenaNKnight First, you’re completely wrong about the usage of granite. The pyramid is almost all limestone, only the pyramidion and pharaohs chamber are made from granite. So no, it’s not almost entirely made from granite. There’s multiple studies that show that a copper saw with a watery slurry of sand or some type of lubrication with sand can make concentric cuts in granite. The copper will be worn down very quickly and the process takes a long time, but it works. In fact it makes sense then that the Egyptians used granite sparingly compared to limestone considering how difficult it was to cut and move. If they had some lost efficient high tech or magic tools, wouldn’t they be more efficient? The granite blocks also weren’t laser precise or anywhere near that. That’s a fallacy that’s propagated by people to make it seem impossible. Being conservative with granite block usage and the lack of precision in their cutting seems to align more with the idea that the tools were probably not some ultra high tech laser precise machinery or telekinetic force that has no physical evidence. In addition to this we have found copper tools and saws and have papyri and work gang graffiti literally documenting the building of the pyramids.
@bogi bratu My apologies. You are correct. The chambers are what is 80ton granite. The polygonal floors surrounding the pyramids are basalt.
No one is arguing that you can't cut limestone like that given enough time, but it isn't practical. 3 things, though, we've never found a copper saw. And 2, you can't feasbly do that to granite and basalt blocks, let alone make extremely precise statues. And 3, the marks in the granite and basalt are more akin to the marks made by extremely steady and high-powered saw cuts than a slow abrasion with copper.
Academia is saying they were smart and precise enough to make a masterpiece that of the pyramids but not smart enough to use tool to better fit the job. Something isn't adding up.
@@AthenaNKnight I’m sorry but they are not. If you actually go up to the blocks and see the drill holes and cuts they are not at that precise of level. No archeologist or geologist has made this claim nor has such an observation been made yet. As I said, the only ones saying the pyramid blocks are laser precise are those who want to make it seem impossible. They have literally replicated on a much smaller scale in the book “Experiments in Egyptian Archaeology”. Over 200 different possible methods and tools were tested out and found feasible methods for drilling and cutting. And as I said, it makes sense that since granite was so difficult to work with, they only used 200 blocks in comparison to the 2.5 million limestone blocks. It’s well documented how easy it is to work limestone. Even Graham Hancock has given up on the limestone argument because it’s practically proven at this point, and now he only brings up the granite blocks issue since they are the real marvel in stone working of that time. I think we can agree there are probably more methods and tools we probably do not know everything about, but we do have physical evidence of copper tools and should not start making crazy jumps to theories which have no actual physical evidence.
Graham Hancock states he is not a scientist or archaeologist, he is a presenter of ideas and a journalist. So saying you have problems with his use of the scientific method is a given.
Great point!!! However, I will say that when making claims as major as he is, regardless of background or title, I think it is important to have a solid foundation for reasoning.
I agree.
Hancock doesn’t bear the slightest resemblance to a scientist or archeologist.
The idea is ridiculous.
@@rosifervincent9481 Or a journalist.
He's telling stories. And as a writer journalist he knows he has to have a nemesis, the dreaded "mainstream" archaeologist, to keep the narrative exciting! Then he tries to quietly have his cake too, when he leans on all the amazing archaeological finds and information archaeology has uncovered to stitch his mythical storyline together. I didn't see him visit a single site or artifact that could be attributed to his insights, wisdom, or information. His work is like calling the psychic hotline where they can reveal everything, and yet nothing, to you. But they know they have the human brain on their side and yours will fill in the gaps.
He needs to show me on this doll where the archaeologists hurt him.
Explain to me Chuck what would motivate Hancock to "stitch his mythical story line together". Are you suggesting he is making up these stories to sell books and construct Netflix videos for profit? I personally believe Hancock's motivation is determining the truth about ancient civilization.
As someone who has written on convergent evolution, but also enjoys Hancock's ideas, I have a serious question for you: what sort of non-genetic evidence would you accept that two cultures are related? Seriously.
Also just a pop culture note: Hancock wasn't just on Joe Rogan, he was of the very first guests more than a decade ago.
Clearly, what sports they play and which side of the road they drive on. I totally wouldn't look at things like language, artifacts or religion - that'd be crazy. 🤦
As for Joe Rogan, he's a milder version of Herschel Walker - what happens if you get hit on the head repeatedly when you aren't too bright to begin with.
@@himoffthequakeroatbox4320 Joe Rogan is quite bright actually
@@himoffthequakeroatbox4320 the more I read your comments the more I realize you are probably just a sad yet cute little troll
And of course the owner of this channel comments only on praise and fellow shaming of Hancock
@Groovefe Maybe Rogan fanboys aren't worth her time.
About confirmation bias, I tend to believe that in Hancocks theories this is the case. He is great at developing theories that might or might not be true. I appreciate there is someone developing these theories, because without the freedom to create hypotheses, it is quite impossible to generate knowledge. The actual hard part is to back all this up with evidence. However there is evidence that there are some serious chunks missing in the history told by traditional archeology. So fair enough, we need alternative theories. Hancock got plenty of them.
The evidence are there if you look hard enough and if you would approach it with an open mind, not bound to established scince. The problem is, any opposing ideas are quickly shut down, the people posing questions are painted as quacks and ideas are labeled pseudo science in wikipedia that are heavily guarded. If the new ideas are truly quackery and will fall flat on its face, why make so much effort to write articles and create pages and pages online to bury such ideas, block any effort for those ideas to enter academia at any level, block fundings, hassel the scientist on using equipments to do research. Why?
We can't make anything out of it now because archeologist WONT DIG THE FREAKING SITES!
Out of genuine curiosity, which sites would you like to have digged out if you were in charge and why?
@@sulai9689 Gobekli Tepe first, they found many other identical sites laying near the one that was excavated, we have much more to dig in there to find answers, materials on how they were able to create such a thing 10 000BCE
26 Hancock books didn't write themselves.
Everyone does confirmation bias all of the time. Existing belief systems in all fields do this. To portray "science" and scientists as not doing this, seriously lack self-reflection. Confirmation bias alone isn't a refutation of one's beliefs. Because one's beliefs are always tested by the broader group and peers. Especially when the belief is the majority position.
Correct me if I'm wrong but are you saying that the archeological "academics" suffer from confirmation bias? If so I totally agree but I think the problem is much worse than that. The "academics" refuse to debate anyone who disagrees with their narrative because they know their theory about megalithic stone construction is inferior. At least they're not trying to hang Hancock for blasphemy.
I think two things can be true at once.
1. Hancock makes some pretty good arguments and while he lacks ‘the smoking gun’, some of his arguments (in general, not just Ancient Apocalypse) are pretty hard to argue.
2. Ancient Apocalypse was produced in a very ‘Hollywood’ way, which can unfortunately distort his basic argument.
I loved your video and what you had to say! The confirmation bias point was a really great one.
First if all, thank You for this video. I really appreciate that you mention both sides, the things you liked and disliked.
I think about the first thing you pointed out, the confirmation bias concept is also used by the archaeologist and historian community, that is the main reason he says we all should question the mainstream narratives. All the scientists think with their present minds and make conclusion on their present knowledge looking at rocks and artefacts. There could be so many possibilities of how and why and who did what, but there is only one conclusion. The bigger problem is for me (and for Graham and for a lot of thinkers) that you can not question anything, they stick and grab so hard to their tuths. And that there is no debate, only getting personal. So that is why I'm thankful for your work, it's a start of having conversations about these matters. Have a good one!!
We have to also keep in mind that Archaeology and History have scientific method backing them up, and every argument made or thesis defended by a researcher passes through academic scrutiny. What I see here is a huge misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the scientific method when applied to the humanities; maybe because of academia's own isolationist tendencies combined with a progressive scraping of basic education. After all, middle school and high school should serve not only to teach useful skills, but also to transmit humanity's accumulated scientific knowledge. Anyway, it is a researcher's duty to be wary of confirmation bias and try to disprove his own biased theory when possible; search for other theories to explain the evidence and whatnot. And the best theory is usually not one that contradicts every conclusion that has ever been reached in the field, nor every paper published analyzing ancient civilizations. It is also against any scientific method to have a theory formed before cherry-picking examples that prove it. You have to analyze the evidence for itself, one by one, come up with a plethora of solutions that answer your question. You have to also consider the evidence going against.
What part of the newer findings came with confirmation bias. What examples did you see specifically. You were quite general when referring to his way of operating.
I like that you didn’t just arrogantly attack Hancock personally as many in your field tend to do. I have two bachelors of science. One in philosophy the other in political science. After watching the show and listening to most of his podcast episodes with Joe Rogan I whole heartedly believe there is something to his theories. I would critique your analysis and things you found troubling of the show. I agree there is confirmation bias in the show but he does touch on opposing views. I agree he doesn’t explain them ad nauseam, but why would he? The mainstream view points are all what we have grown up being taught in textbooks and propagated by those in your field of study. He mentions the mainstream views which to be quite honest share the same confirmation bias as you claim he has. This is evident in the fact that several major archeological sites have literally banned him. This is a disgusting example of scientific ignorance and sensorship. If main stream archeologist operating these sites are so secure in their beliefs and theories why not welcome him to explore and investigate. If nothing else it may potentially refute his own ideas. Not to insult you but the reason his show is resonating with the general public is because it makes way more sense than the illogical explanations provided in textbooks by those in your field. When archeologists provide a weak explanation for how the Egyptians built the pyramids, or why all these different humans (more than 2 speaking on your convergent evolution critique) there are literally dozens of cultures all over the planet all using large megaliths to build all around the same time. I would understand if there were 2 or 3 cultures that all decided to build pyramids or large megalithic structures. But it is not 2 or 3 it is literally dozens. It also does not make sense that all these cultures would use massive stones to build their structures. More modern cultures use much smaller or easier to use building materials like wood, small stones, and mud/dirt. Mainstream archeologist do not even attempt to explain (adequately) why or how all these ancient civilizations did this. The evidence he presents is the structures themselves. They all share similar building techniques and astronomical connections. This cannot be a coincidence and archeologist do not even attempt to explain this phenomenon. What about mainstream archeological theory about how the pyramids were built makes more sense than his theory? What makes more logical sense, mainstream ideas or that there was some kind of advanced civilization that left all these completely dumbfounding structures behind? I think before our lifetime is over the theories he has presented will in some way be proven. Maybe not all of them but some. I think until archeologist adequately can refute his theories which make more sense to general public then people will continue to move toward his theories of our origins and away from mainstream views.
Two degrees…..and you didn’t learn what a paragraph is?
@@rosifervincent9481 Well he's a scientist not a poet ... oops, my bad.
@@rosifervincent9481it’s a CZcams comment. Not a work document. Nobody has time to write things in a way that bozos like you can read it.
@@slappinsteve3852 Yeah, it’s a real killer pressing the return key now and again.
And my comment wasn’t just a criticism of your turgid ‘wall of text’ writing style, it was also a note of scepticism as to your claim of any academic degrees.
@@rosifervincent9481 People like you love to act like degrees make people a worthy source of formation. The reality is that a degree doesn’t mean you know anything, it means you passed enough bullshit classes to have your name on that paper. If a degree alone meant something, it wouldn’t be so hard for a college graduate to get a job without experience. This idea that college graduates are the only people capable of having a worthy opinion is just dumb. And the idea that the person above doesn’t have a college education because they didn’t put paragraphs on a CZcams comment is more dumb. (Coming from someone with a degree) I’ve met more dumb people in college in the few years I was there, than I ever did at my small hometown. Having a degree doesn’t instantly qualify you as a good source of information. Nor does graduating college instantly make people a genius. College teaches people what they want them to know, not always what they should know.
To quickly address your confirmation bias claim. Due to the limited number of episodes and time constraints, a lot had to be left on the cutting room floor unfortunately; however, typically the way things work with investigative journalism is that you create a hypothesis and present evidence in support of that hypothesis. The freedom Graham Hancock has is that he doesn't claim to be a scientist or archeologists, so he follows the rules of journalism since that's what his nearly 40 year career has consisted of.
Another important thing to note is that he doesn't pull all of these sites and associated information about them out of thin air. He gets the information directly from the source...site managers/directors, caretakers, on-site archeologists, scientists and other scholars that live and breathe each location on a daily basis and are familiar with more than just what's in the ground. Often times, archeology fails to take into account the myths and legends associated with the structures and people that used them. From a journalistic standpoint, all information is relevant and worthy of being presented...of course, with the exception of the one brand new site where there's still very little known about it (won't spoil it for those that haven't seen yet). Back to my point though, Graham is the reporter in this equation and the information comes from trusted and seasoned veterans that have dedicated their entire lives to what was being presented...so when people blindly and impulsively want to attack him for being the messenger (which has always been a common theme with his work over the decades) they're actually attacking the work of all the people on the ground that work and study every nook and cranny, inside and out of each of these locations.
It goes without dispute that humans in their various forms have existed for millions of years on our planet, as has been discovered by finding ancient remains and artifacts all throughout the world. many of the oldest coming out of Africa, but Russia/Siberia, Turkey and other locations bear to contribute to the ancient story of life on our planet as well. In fact, long before the most recent ice age which we're still technically in the tail-end of geologically and epochly speaking. Even in North America, there's been evidence found dating back to the Younger Dryas period showing settlements, structures, tools and skeletal remains of hominids, which, the consensus on the dating for the Younger Dryas is at or around the beginning of the age, roughly 12,900 years ago to 11,700 years ago.
I'll stop with this, but would love to continue the conversation with anyone that might be interested. I just didn't want to go on forever with a single post (lol). Cheers!
I was interested to hear what you had to say and then as another college grad I was a tad sad that you didn't have any other citations other then definitions. Graham, although you may not agree, is not and archeologist or scientist, but a reporter and cites his work. I just stumbled onto his and Crandall's work. I'm hoping that if I watch more of your content that your opinions will have more durability with people, journals, & papers etc. ❤
I am working on a video now, going through each episode detail-by-detail. Cite all my work. Hancock says in Episode 1 that "because of the work of Dr. Hillman, that archaeologists are now presented with the idea that Gunung Padang is a step pyramid." Yet, there are reports from 1982 by archaeologists saying the site was a step pyramid.
He says archaeologists were slow to investigate it and thought it was just a natural hill. Yet, Gunung Padang shows up in archaeological reports in 1914. Excavations started in 1970s and has continuously been worked on by archaeologists.
Hancock makes a lot of claims and doesn't cite them. He either is a very poor researcher or he is lying to the audience.
@@ActualArchaeology And so are you. I'm sure that every claim you just made is factual, however you haven't produced any evidence other than your word. You are no different than the "demon" that you attempt to exorcise. Just saying.
@@jcbynum007 Absolutely, correct. I was busy trying to get my video to upload that has all my sources on there, but that isn't an excuse. I should have said it in my original post. I'll give you sort of an annotated bibliography on each. Feel free to check the sources yourself. I have the images up on my video, if you don't want to have to dig through them yourself. Some of the articles are in Indonesian though, so it may be difficult. I had to have a native speaker translate the articles for me to make sure it was accurate translations.
Akbar, Ali. 2022. Rewriting Civilization Based on Scientific Revolution: Current Research Findings from Archaeological Sites in Indonesia
This is a review of the archaeological site, particularly the most influential on Indonesian history, and their significance. This was written by the same archaeologist that appeared on Ancient Apocalypse. He remakes the case that Gunung Padang is a step pyramid, as originally noted by Soejono (1982:87). Additionally, he gives the history of the archaeological research on the site. Pages 495-496 would be the most prominent to the discussion.
Krom, N.J. 1914. Rapporten van de Oudheidkundige Diens.
This is the original western archaeological report noting Gunung Padan as an archaeological site. There were a lot of expedition reporting of archaeological sites around this time. It typically has site descriptions, but no deep analysis.
Soejono, R.P. 1982. On the megaliths in Indonesia. Megalithic cultures in Asia. pp. 73-98.
This is the paper that first makes the claim that Gunung Padang is a step pyramid based on the archaeological definitions. Soejono reviews other megalithic structures throughout Asia, spending a lot of time on southeastern Asia. Page 87 is where you can find him making the statements.
Wardani, Winny, Wulandri, and Syahid. 2019. Presentasi Ruang Arkeologi Situs Gunung Padang Melalui Visualisasi Batu Penanda Untuk Buku Foto.
This paper primarily discusses the cultural and political influences that impact archaeological sites today. It focuses specifically on Gunung Padang for the analysis, but discusses a few other case studies.
Yondri, Lutfi. 2018. Punden Berundak Gunung Padang Refleksi Adaptasi Lingkungan dari Masyarakat Megalitik.
This article gives a detailed history of the archaeological and geological work that has been performed at the site. It also discusses the potential use and construction of the site based on several excavation units shown throughout the article. It is probably the best article if you just want to know as much about the archaeological features of Gunung Padang.
I don't try to demonize Graham Hancock, but I will, and I think everyone should fan or critic, point out his logical flaws and when he makes statements and about a site, archaeologists, or anything and has nothing to back it up - and there is quite a bit of evidence showing the opposite. I've been doing this form of public engagement like this for a few months now, Graham Hancock has been doing this for 30 years. Yet, in just that amount of time, on a site that I wasn't familiar with until the Netflix series, I've been able to find dozens of either lies or under researched points he has made on just 1 episode.
I know others have said for extraordinary claims, you need extraordinary evidence - yet Hancock hasn't been able to produce even the ordinary evidence. And seeing his history of either misleading an audience or poorly researching a site should make anyone question his theories.
Thanks again for the comment. That was a good critique and you were right in implying that I should have shown the evidence in my original post.
@@ActualArchaeology Now that's what I call research, discovery, and and data sharing for others to ponder. Thank you for being mature about the criticism, and how you carried the conversation, opting to disengage from heated emotion.
May the odds be ever, in your favor !
Agree. It’s just that young scientists are reached by the old ones. So they also have some bias going into the field….. so little people have open mind nowadays.
My problem with the series is mainly that Hancock seems to be mad at archaeologists for... being archaeologists? He kept saying things like "archaeologists don't care about why this happened", when a little further extension into the umbrella field of anthropology would absolutely start theorizing as to why (and in some cases it would actually be inappropriate for archaeologists specifically to make claims like that). Likewise when he says things like "archaeologists say this site is ______ years old" when they're literally saying the oldest artifact they were able to carbon date from the site is _____ years old. There were so many times in each episode I was just left like "what point is he making?"
Bro you keep saying archaeologists disagree, but with what exactly? 😅
1. Is not the blind belief in the existing paradigm in archeology and human history its own confirmation bias? 2. Evolution THEORY is frought with bias, and entirely built on a foundation of assumptions at its outset. As well as geology. What the public has accepted as fact from the sciences are in FACT just theories themselves. I saw some things in the docuseries that made me pause, however there is far more information that supports his theory than what appears in the series. The hubris of the scientific community has always been its Achilles heel. It always presents itself to the public as though we have arrived, that the latest theory is THE theory, and no more research is needed. History has shown many times that we as a species are held back by the pride of the gate keepers of knowledge, that we must first defeat them in the hearts and minds of the public, before we can build our new understanding. Subscribed 👍
You have brought up some excellent questions-many of which I believe are the pinnacle of Theory of Knowledge. I often think about how having a hypothesis may be similar to confirmation bias and today, still do not know the right answer. Thank you for sharing your thoughts and supporting this channel!
Ken Ham, is that you?
Let’s not forget he’s a journalist not an archaeologist.
He does a great job of giving a voice to the intelligence of the native cultures and opening our minds to other possibilities.
I do think it’s time we rewrite our history books according to the native perspectives already written around the world as opposed to the emphasis being on the European origins.
I enjoyed your video. Another example of convergent evolution that you may enjoy is the fact that the classical piano was invented simultaneously in 3 different countries. It was the best mechanical solution to a musical problem with the older piano forte keyboard :)
This girl, commenting on Graham Hancock, whose body of work is massive. His appearance on ancient aliens, is like an episode of season of the TV show based on everything who publishes and appears for. This girl has been fed University knowledge. She has her a little plaque in the background, and she is interpreting for instants, the most famous professor at her university, publishing books, TV shows, and then showing up on the Internet aliens that’s really what this is what about the pyramids in Antarctica please explain that in detail young lady.
@@skobuffs I have read many of Mr. Hancock's books. I really enjoy the detail of his research and his writing style. However, I don't always agree with his conclusions - and I don't feel that is necessary to enjoy his work. And unfortunately, I feel that he often makes his conclusions before he does the research. That approach has its disadvantages. None-the-less I think all sides should be heard and not censored. Have a good day.
You’ve explained poorly why you disagree with Grahams arguments by explaining to viewers word definitions you’ve learned rather than the content of his arguments, instead attempt to reduce his legitimacy which is exactly what he argues in the series. Great job for proving his theory on institutionalized closed mindedness.
The Hawaiian version of the flood even has a patriarchal figure with the name that sounds similar to Noah. There are also vast key similarities and pyramids around the world. We also see civilizations that, once we westerners encountered them, are not capable of the architecture we saw. Their own legends also seem to indicate some outside help or communication. One field I am trained in is interviewing folks and finding the truth by the common threads. I do think there is a connection between these civilizations far beyond coincidence based on the vast evidence, as what we see is more like similar DNA, not so much superficial features like a shark and a dolphin.
"as what we see is more like similar DNA, not so much superficial features like a shark and a dolphin"
Given the level of difference between different pyramidal constructions across the world I think actually shark and dolphin actually fits better.
Mesopotamian Ziggurats share little but the most basic of shape with Egyptian pyramids.
Ziggurats actually share much more in common with Mayan pyramids on the otherside of the world.
But Ziggurats used fired clay brick and Mayan pyramids used stone and earth.
Similar, but very different.
So 5 minutes in and you haven't really said much , there is no way in the next ten minutes you are going to unravel or debunk the works of Graham Hancock. I have been watching Grahams theories evolve for over a decade and there is no doubt someone other than the dynastic Egyptians built the great pyramid, simply now way possible they built it. That is the most irrefutable proof and keystone to Grahams work, everything that follows fits together very well. I can't say the same fore your video.
Sometimes, it gets difficult to grasp the lengthy span of geologic time which the earth travels through in cyclic seasons due to the earth's wobble on its cosmic-year journey. Sometimes, as it turns out, we do return back to the dangerous Taurid meteor stream which brings us within annihilation from asteroid impacts which proved devastating wether it was at Chixulub or at Tunguska. And sometimes it's difficult to realise that these defining moments were witnessed globally and the severe and drastic changes to Life and planetary terraforming resulted. If we were to now face these overwhelming kinds of events, how would we let the people who survive 50,000 years from now know that we had iphones or satellites or angry bird games on our laptops or that we had Pink Floyd or Cigarettes after Sex and an Airbus A380 or the International Space Station and hopes and dreams and plans with our lives..? How would we let them know? The people of the past who are capable of creating 1200-ton (roughly the weight of 2000 pickup trucks) bricks for their temples saw these events in real time approaching in relative slow motion and they decided to preserve for example Gobekli Tepe, and construct the monolithic stone structures that are impossibly ridiculous for us now to build with the same level of precision... The knowledge and ideas of Vimanas and Sonic resonance to levitate heavy objects or the carving of a single gigantic temple from an entire hardened mountainside with autocad laser-like precision, and eroded over an epoch of time, these pieces of evidence remains to show that before the younger dryas era or 400 feet of sea level rise, something wonderful was happening on our Pale Bue Dot, and just like we are an air-faring world of today, somehow the civilisations of the past were indeed a globe-trotting bunch. I know i've just mirrored what he says, in a way, Alivia, but I liked and respect your very polite and pragmatic approach to point out the non scientific way he reaches these otherwise convincing conclusions. I really liked that you point out, in a manner of speaking, that there must be a basis to definitively reach a conclusion between a hypothesis and conclusion. I guess, we're somewhere in between the guess or a situation where, from ongoing observations, say if the outer planets are being pulled gravitationally to a certain side in each of their orbits around the sun, that reason for it must be that a very very heavy outer planet is influencing their course gravitationally, as per the data and observation, but its unscientific to say that there actually is a planet thats really pulling at them till it is actually discovered. Yet we can't ignore the truth that the outer planets are in actuality, being pulled. Till then, it would remain an educated guess. I hardly ever write anywhere. I liked that you were really polite in voicing your side and its perfectly right from your side. Where I am is somewhere torn between what he says, and what you say, and the reason I'd written here is that I think we shouldn't completely disregard the possibility that he may turn out to be right, with further research and concrete evidences as they unveil themselves, over time")
"asteroid impacts which proved devastating wether it was at Chixulub or at Tunguska"
Tunguska was not an impact event, that much is certain.
More likely is that a partially burning impacting object had a large gas pocket which ignited close to land fall causing an air burst over the region, not unfamiliar from what the more advanced nuclear weapons during the Cold War were designed to do.
Hancock has studied the case for decades and he has collected absolute ton of supporting "evidence" for his theory. The Netflix show barely scratches the surface of the mountain of "evidence" Hancock has precented in his books.
But what is really curious is that Hancocks ideas is not new - they are old. And as time goes by more and more evidence supporting his theory keeps propping up.
Go read his books.
I really do not like your explanation about Hancocks flood myths.
Just have a think; Why would hundreds of cultures have myths about floods? There are large forest fires every single day on planet earth but you really do not find that many myths about all devastating similar forest fires in folklores. The same can be said with volcanos.
Hancock draws the highly logical conclusion that sometime in our past the same phenomena was experienced around the globe. And as the evidences keeps piling up sometime in the next decades Hancocks "wild" theories will be proven correct. The smoking gun is the scablands.
Go read his books - the Netflix show is only scratching the surface.
I think that these Ancient civilizations are extremely complex beyond what we currently understand right now, to reduce it to they all "accidentally came to the same design and same storytelling" sounds a little bit stretching to me.
The Mayans had a great level complexity with their Pyramids and the same goes for the Egyptians, just to say "well maybe they just came with the same design with out the need to know about each other" sounds more far fetched to me.
I'm not saying they knew each other, but it does makes you wonder, why extremely advanced knowledge came to the same design but do so different things.
I don't think Hancock did a great presentation of his points but they do merit somehow question, why came to be like this? Why The Mayans and Egyptians are so similar yet so far away?
I'm not saying Hancocks show is perfect and didn't do a great presentation but it does make you wonder that maybe we don't have the full picture yet to say, who's right and who is wrong? Even in the scientific community there will be people that have egos to protect and might hinder the progress to know our past.
It's like wheels. Not every civilisation had them, but those that did[1] always had round ones. Seems far fetched to me that they just came up with that. Why weren't some oval?
[1] Apart from the Welsh, but there's a logical explanation for that.
Conformation bias? Well, I learned this in grade school. It's called "The scientific method." An observation, like "Fingerprints of the Gods", leads to a hypotheses. This can then be tested in multiple areas across all kinds of disciplines. And when dozens of disciplines all point to the same conclusion, that hypotheses is proven true!
There are many things we don't know about this world which is a treasure chest of mysteries. Humility is the best approach.
The best approach is to explore the science for the sake of science…
Real science, real things will never be published or made available to populations. How many rounds of the vaccine did you take?
So what about the structures themselves. People try to disapprove due to confirmation bias but can't dispute the actual ancient structures. Saying people separate from one another and can build similar structures doesn't add up to the extreme intelligence it took to build these structures
It was hard to listen to Hancock constantly disparage 'mainstream archeology' as if it is a pejorative. This screams of sour grapes from someone desperate for and lacking in its recognition. Archeology would embrace his thesis if he had strong evidence for it. Instead Hancock peppers his Netflix series with lots of 'could be' and 'might be' statements which are fun to think about but do nothing to prove his claims.
Confucius say: what do you call alternative medicine that works? Mainstream medicine!
@@himoffthequakeroatbox4320 no the mainstream calls it horse dewormer
Want a piece of ancient knowledge about the geodesy of megaliths ?
The diagonal of a square with its sides corresponding to the length of the hypotenuse of a 55cm by 34cm right triangle (55/34=1.6176 is an approximation to the golden ratio) is equal to 91.44 centimeters which is the english Yard measurement !
I love the desperate pushback! It seems Graham is getting close to the matter.
Why does Ancient Aliens not cause such an uproar? That's all this is, only tamer. Maybe since it's a little more believable, it upsets people more than Ancient Aliens. Hancock just says advanced humans built the pyramids. Which seems obvious to me. Moving 50 to granite blocks requires some serious work and thought.
I've been a Hancock fan for years although I don't buy into his comet idea. I think solar outbursts are more likely. Especially since some of the climate changes are cyclical.
I don't understand why it seems hard to imagine there were more intelligent civilizations before us. Personally, I'm astonished when I see all these ancient structures.
Because it is more important for people to get excited about the Mar-a-Lago raid and thinking, after almost a full year, now that Donald Trump is going to be arrested versus that the destruction of society in civilization has happened on more than one previous occasion
It's not hard to imagine. It's just hard to prove - because it hasn't been.
Confirmation bias is a real thing, but likewise mainstream archeology cannot just ignore that which it can’t explain. It seems to me if your best argument is that Graham’s evidence supports his theory you have lost the debate!
I feel like there are some things in your video about graham's theory about similar architecture that aren't addressed in this video.
But I overall I do think that the points you did bring up is a good counterpoint to what Graham is saying. Further I absolutely enjoy that your video unlike many I have seen in the last few days actually is like a debate about the articles of work that Graham brought up rather than the personal character traits of Graham. There has been too much criticism for graham's work from more popular history channels where it feels like they have taken personal offense to the fact that Graham is proposing a theory that is not accepted by mainstream archeology and simply say that his wrong without explanation. Which I think shouldn't be the case in science at all.
Especially since in science you should keep an open mind since new evidence and understanding can lead to new discoveries of concepts previously thought impossible.
And to that point I thoroughly enjoyed the fact that your video, expressing your opinions does a great job communicating explaining why you have those opinions. In addition I love that we can see even though you disagreed with graham's methods and maybe his theory you are willing to keep an open mind open his theories.
"more popular history channels where it feels like they have taken personal offense to the fact that Graham is proposing a theory that is not accepted by mainstream archeology"
#1. From my experience the channels that follow the Hancock line are far more popular than the ones that don't.
Following the academic line is boring, specific and full of facts that the average person simply doesn't want to bother learning, let alone understand.
#2. Graham Hancock dedicates at least 20% of every piece of media he has ever produed towards bashing "mainstream academia".
Every book, every TV series.
If his works had any real bite to them I would expect he would feel that they could speak for themselves without having to pull this regular whinging martyr act where he tries to appeal to the readers love for the underdog.
#3. Just imagine if every single archaeologist followed Hancock's example and dedicated 20+% of every single research paper to bashing Graham Hancock by name.
It would be childish and ridiculous - to say nothing of massively unprofessional.
They hold themselves to a higher standard of conduct than he does evidently.
#4. When archaeologists do take a shot at him, they name him.
They do not take pot shots at "non mainstream profiteering archaeo grifters" or some other similarly silly named vague group of people that does not require them to answer back to specific individuals.
Hancock uses the blanket term pf "mainstream academia" to slander his competition and distract his audience from their sources of information - because that is all archaeology is to him, competition for attention that puts money in his pocket.
@@mnomadvfxI haven't watched the show, but I have read some of his books and I've watched all of the Joe Rogan podcasts with him as well as some videos criticising Hancock a while ago, so I can say for sure that most of the videos criticising him were attacking his character (a strawman of his character) more than his points.
I do agree that he does a lot of confirmation bias and some of his ideas are stretched, but from all the criticism I've seen, he isn't playing a martyr. Most of the critics were attacking him by taking a lot of what he says out of context and blatantly insulting him from the very begining.
Is the show a money grab? Yes, maybe. I don't know Gram personally to know what kind of a person he is, but he was writing and researching this stuff before he was famous and there were academics attacking him in the same manner even back then.
It's funny seeing how many of the comments (from academically educated people) under those podcast videos were saying that he's "claiming martyrdom", while at the same time calling him delusional, a greedy bastard, an idiot, a moron, uneducated etc.
Huh, let’s remember what happened to Nicolas Copernicus, the scientists of the time thought he was mad!
I've enjoyed watching the numerous reactions to this series. I have been familiar with GH's work since the 90s and "Fingerprints of the Gods". My belief is that his main appeal is to those who don't really have a good understanding of science, the scientific method or critical thinking. I know to some that may sound "elitist", yet it always occured to me that in any other field of study (paloeanthropology, genetics, astrophysics, aerospace engineering) the response to some cowboy independent researcher making grand claims that "challenge the mainstream narrative" would garner a small crowd of nutters but generally not gonna make millionaires.
I've been concerned for decades about the sorry state of education in the US. The legion millionaires and billionaires have been mostly successful at buying congresspeople and reducing, or eliminating the amount of taxes they actually contribute to our treasury. Graham has reaped the benefit of being a very persuasive journalist convincing a largely science illiterate throng of people who like a good story and conspiracy and are not really motivated to fact-check the guy who makes them feel like they are smarter than the scientists.
You aren’t that familiar with the work if this is your take, there’s some info indicating that Hancock is at least partially correct about some of the claims. Ignoring information that is hard for you to believe because you have already established a narrative is not critical thinking. The notion that people with degrees are the only humans that can form cohesive thoughts, use the scientific method or critical thinking is not only elitist it’s wrong.
Although I do agree with the dumbing down of the population, it’s hard to argue that.
@@joshualyons4121 Well, Joshua it sounds as if you think there are some qualifications that would be needed for me to have an opinion about the work of Graham Hancock. I mentioned that I've read his book and viewed lectures and interviews over the years. I am familiar with his work! His story really isn't that hard to understand. You seem to think that you do, right?
But you mention some info that is "at least partially correct". I may have missed something, we're all human, if you would care to enlighten me on what info specifically you feel the most compelling, I would be thankful.
Well, I don't have a degree in anthropology, archaeology, forensics, or geology. Sounds like you don't have one. Graham proudly proclaims that he doesn't have one. So we, and he, are non-experts offering non-expert opinions about things we haven't really studied in depth.
I am aware that GH has a huge fan base, and has earned millions of dollars selling his narrative to a non-expert audience. He gives his followers permission to feel that they are wiser and more well informed than those who excavate, analyze, form hypotheses, and publish results so the general public can know that sites like Gobekli and Karahan Tepe exist.
An example that has hit me in the face recently is that he accepts the mainstream dating of the pyramids at Giza and that it was the Egyptians that built them. I guess he fell into a logical trap. He repeatedly asserts, and is quoted often, that Gobekli Tepe was constructed roughly 11,600 ybp. And he adds that this is around 5000 years before Stonehenge and 7000 years before the pyramids. You don't need a degree in math to figure this one out. Plus this indicates that he feels the radio-carbon dates at GT are reliable and can be trusted.
Very good...I totally agree with you. Here in the UK anyone with a modicum of science training knew that Hancock was a charlatan in the mold of Von Daniken way back in the mid 90s.
@@grahamwishart4832 What you may not be aware is that here in the US an old man speaking with a "cultured" British accent is assumed to be way smarter and knowledgeable that the average American of similar age. Most Americans (I cringe to admit) don't have that modicum of science literacy, or critical thinking tendencies. Therefore I would speculate that Graham's fan base and likely much of his millions are derived from Americans who avoided any science or math classes during school and carry a grudge against anyone who can think their way out of a wet paper sack.
@@russellmillar7132 Haha..well said. I've seen other comments regarding the English accent. Hancock is not actually that posh to us, but he's a smart journalist and studied Sociology at a prestigious University (Durham). Sometime back in the early 90s he must have had a brainwave that he could make a lot of money selling his dubious theories and snakeoil to a ripe and gullible audience... certainly more than serious journalism. He wrote a fairly good book called "The Lords of Poverty" in the late 80s.
One key point that people always seem to miss is that when Hancock is speaking to someone that agrees with him he doesn't let them ever embellish what he has said, even just a little bit. It's free support and influence under the radar it would win him points but he just doesn't. Even his boldest claims are measured, if he thinks people agree with him on something even a fraction more he'll reign it back in. He also owns his mistakes which is a lot more than 'big archaeology does'. They've destroyed the reputations of academics that have turned out to be right on something. Is there any apology though? Nope.
I agree that Hancock scientific methods got a huge holes a lot of jumping to conclusions
But he successfully opened my eyes in a huge explanatory gaps in the current mainstream archaeology
Especially the theories about how this magnificent sites like the pyramids was built in the copper age
Exactly-this is what I was trying to get at during the end of my video. There are definitely gaps in the archaeological record and we need to explore them!
@@AliviaBrown but I feel that there is a lot hypocrisy in claiming that this flaws is a new thing in archaeological theories
There are a lot of bullshit methods resulting conclusions that formed the columns that the mainstream point of view relays on
Can any body did any experiments around for example shaping a granite rock and produce a statue as Semitic and accurate as at least average Egyptian statue
Or how copper age guys paint statues with gold layer without electricity
@@AliviaBrown If you find something in the middle of a gap, congratulations - you now have two gaps.
@@himoffthequakeroatbox4320 Eh?
A gap in a gap is still just a gap.
0 x 0 = 0
"Especially the theories about how this magnificent sites like the pyramids was built in the copper age"
From what I have seen no single academic has brought forth a definitive theoretical model combining all necessary stone cutting, transportation and construction/architectural hypotheses into a singular work.
Mostly because it is too much work for even one or several to address in a single paper.
Individuals have gone over all of these things separately and experimentally verified all but the construction / architecture mthod involved - which is basically impossible to verify without literally tearing the Great Pyramid to pieces layer by layer as archaeologists do ancient sites.
It seems like JP Houdin's internal spiral ramp / counterweight elevator hypothesis might suffice, or at least some future variant of it, as it by far makes the most sense out of all the current construction hypotheses.
There are also deep shafts dotted about the Giza plateau which could have served as counterweight assistance for moving stone around up there.
I still waiting for archeologists like yourself to refute Handcock's theory point by point using evidence. What I heard here are two conceptual philosophical theories that I believe the mainstream archeology also has committed. Do you have any book or article that challenges Handcock's theory. He is also open to debate the idea and data he has with archeologists but so far none takes up the challenge. I would like to see you make a video specifically point out what evidence he presented in the series that falls into the fallacy of confirmation bias. Also the flood myth is universal so what evidence can you present to prove that it is only coincidental? Lets start with the dating of the Sphinx
Love the Ancient Apoalypse series on netflix. I think it is sad that pople get bashed just because they have a different opinion threatening the "standard" academic view. There is so much more we don't know and I listen to people who tell me the truth. You can feel it when the truth is being presented. You cannot take our history seriously. Scholars and achelaelogy today have failed and they are not interrested in true history, only their own ego. What a waste of education money for the tax-payers.
"just because they have a different opinion threatening the "standard" academic view"
He does not have a non standard academic view, because he is not an academic at all.
He's an entertainer who has been extremely well compensated monetarily for his works.
Consequently when he bashes academia (which he hasn't stopped doing from day one in the 90s) you need to take into account his HUGE financial conflict of interest for promoting his audiences distrust of academic sources that release information for FREE vs the curated information he doles out book by book (or TV series) for profit.
Just for context he had sold over a million copies of his books by the end of the 90s alone - and no doubt ITN/Netflix compensated him very handsomely for Ancient Apocalypse, just as he was for guest appearances on Ancient Aliens.
If Hancock hung around on the Joe Rogan show with a gold, diamond encrusted Rolex in an expensive multi thousand £ suit with a slick millionaire snob hair cut you wouldn't trust him so easily would you?
His entire persona is custom designed to give this approachable buddy buddy look so that you trust him - and when he starts harping on the evil "mainstream academia" it is designed to elicit an emotional response to his words so that you are more emotionally invested in the rest of it.
Any good academic work speaks for itself based on the arguments and evidence - you don't find the people publishing about ice age writing (5th January 2023) spending at least 10-20% of the research paper just to bash Graham Hancock do you?
Of course not! But that is exactly what Hancock does - spending a significant fraction of every one of his media works bashing his competition for your attention.
It's a business strategy, sadly one that works very well from what I can see - hook, line and sinker.
When Graham says highly intelligent he means a civilisation that can navigate the globe on ships, like a Victorian era not technically as advanced as we are but maybe more in tune with the planet than we are
i think a civilization/civilizations couldve definitely been wiped out by the younger dryas mass extinction 12800 years ago which caused the largest mass extinction event in 5 million years, it was the equivalent of an all out nuclear war.
i wish i saw that happen live man
confirmation bias could be explained here by the fact that the narrator is simply using a story telling method where he puts forth the big premise of the show up in front of the audience to grab their attention and then goes on to tell us about his evidence
or else he would turn the show into a scientific paper being read out loud
As much as confirmation bias is an issue, dogmatism with established scientists is also a problem. A problem that, in my opinion, is a bigger issue that needs to be addressed.
people point out dogmatism but equally there is a drive to supersede and peer - nit pick to the point of pettiness. Competing research teams are ever so critical of one another. Dogma probably exists but it doesn't thrive so easily.
It is possible to accuse conventional archeology of confirmation bias too. This is Graham Hancock's point. He feels having considered both sides that to ignore the possibility of an advanced culture stretching back into the ice age is to ignore overwhelming evidence to the contrary. My wife is an anthropologist and I'm a researcher and scientist by training and we feel Hancock is making important points that conventional archeology needs to treat with respect and take seriously rather than attack and sneer at.
Can’t get passed the degree hanging on the wall. 🤦🏼♂️
She provided definitions for confirmation bias and convergent evolution but didn’t define strawman argument.
She misrepresents grahams position before she critiques it
He doesn’t claim that many cultures borrowed the flood story from each other. His claim is that many cultures worldwide inependently experiences the same global flood
Everyone can be an expert and give their professional experience right out of school without having any field experience.
Welcome to the western world. All you need is a camera and youtube channel, and people will actually take you serious.
I think you mean "professional opinion" and not "professional experience".
It is easy to dismiss. There are converging evidences.....that is not confirmation bias, but rather a plausible hypothesis
To me it seems likely there has been a sharing of knowledge. Typically the structures represent calender/seasonal aspects along with stories to help preserve the knowledge.
As we know agriculture is the foundation for civilisations to flourish/become creative. What do you need a calender for.. agriculture..
It also seems that there aren't too many previous attempts at said structures 🤷 can a civilisation construct perfectly aligned structures first go, maybe but highly unlikely imo
So it's a case of the chicken and the egg, what came first. Structure that helps identify seasons for agriculture or agriculture with structures to allow for knowledge to be retained 🤷
Confirmation bias.... yes, I see that constantly in the universities, graduates and archeologists.
I’m still 100% on Graham’s side. I live in Mexico and been to several sites, also been to Peru. I’m an architect and the details shown on many of this sites are not just “a coincidence”. Graham’s information about the ice age and the meteorite are very interesting not just a belief.
Over 2000 stories from all kinds of different people around the world speaking about the same thing? Yes, coincidence.
yea and there's 2000 stories of the sun being a god woooooow must be true
Would like to hear a critique that proposes an alternative theory, rather than poking a floors in Hancock's theory. It's a bit cowardly to critique without offering a competing theory, beyond outdated text books, which are just as floored in their own way.
I like the way your open minded enough to suggest his books. Even though you don't agree.
People forget, when they first started finding dinosaur fossils. The church tried to silence those scientists, too.
His theroies may be misguided because of the things still unknown, but it is an interesting theory all the same.
I think, the true problem is between saying something is possible, and nealry impossible there exists a place where both sides agree. What I mean is it could be that two places evolved similiarly decpite the distance bewteen them and it could be that information was passed down. Both sides however seem to back up into thier own corner as time passes and play devil's advicate without working together. I guess that happends when your too passionate about a subject.
"What if Roksana Eve is the predatory fraudster that some people claim she is, responsible for thousands of deaths in the Colombian drug trade and for pocketing millions in crypto scams?" Were someone to begin to posit this absurdity around, you would of course deny it stridently - and justifiably. Perhaps you would provide evidence that appears to verify that you were innocent. But what if those accusers simply declared that an 'elite group of experts' were fabricating that evidence, and colluding to hide other, hitherto unseen evidence that proves you were? What if they then began to ask their followers to demand that you release this hitherto unseen evidence for them to verify? You might say that was impossible, because it doesn't exist. Aha, they would reply, we knew it - you've destroyed it, or classified it with your Government connections! There would be no way for you to escape their ludicrous, unfounded claims. Would you really be satisfied if a 'neutral observer' came along and suggested that the most reasonable course of action was to accept a compromise that you killed a few people and defrauded a few thousand? No - because the claims were, and still are, unproven and unfounded.
I like your way of discussing pro and con. I just found your channel, and like that you are responding to some comments. About confirmation bias: Hancock offers the possibility that ‘mainstream archeology’ has fallen victim to confirmation bias. Who is most biased? I don’t know. At least he is humble enough to say there is a ‘possibility’ for his suggestions to be right. That uncertainty is in the spirit of science.
Hancock has three decades of work to his name. It would be impossible to inlude all of most of the data processing into the show. So I do not agree with you on your point about confirmation bias.
To me an interesting thing about Graham Hancock is, that he tries to point holes in excepted theories and shine light on new possibilities. Let’s celebrate this diversity. People have no idea how hard it is to work against common beliefs. Though that is how many discoveries are made.
Thanks for sharing these thoughts-I agree that there is something really important about questioning what we know and Hancock definitely does this