Fundamental Objections To Graham Hancock
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 06. 2024
- 5 fundamental objections to Hancock's belief in an "advanced" ancient civilization. Material Culture, Location, Diet, Sex & Timeline.
SAA November 2019 Edition: onlinedigeditions.com/publicat...
Hancock's response: grahamhancock.com/saa-archaeo...
/ stefanmilo
Disclaimer: Use my videos as a rough guide to a topic. I am not an expert, I may get things wrong. This is why I always post my sources so you can critique my work and verify things for yourselves. Of course I aim to be as accurate as possible which is why you will only find reputable sources in my videos. Secondly, information is always subject to changes as new information is uncovered by archaeologists.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
www.stefanmilo.com
Historysmilo
historysmilo
It’s almost like this Stephan Milo guy has never even done DMT based spirit archaeology
This comment should be pinned
I think he definitely needs to do psychedelics
Just because someone tries DMT doesn't mean they become completely illogical.
Haha imagine an entire dig tripping balls! An episode of Time Team would be REAL interesting 😂😂
Art by Jeremy Maya Robinson it’s a specific joke about Mr Hancock and I’m pro DMT for the record
The spoon increases his credibility.
Seven fold.
@@OEFarredondo You forgot to add NOT behind credibility.
Lmaooo
It's clearly there to underscore the need of any society for such implements. This exact spoon will be dug up 10,000 years from now and used to make hypotheses about our culture and lifestyle. How did Atlanteans eat soup or record their youtube videos?
One bull-scoop at a time
Hancock is being schooled by a man using plastic cutlery as a microphone
Are you on about Stefan it needs more research Milo. The only thing he’s schooled is the porky pies he hoofs into that pasty white bake of his
The only thing Milo’s schooled is the pies he keeps shovelling down his bake
Apropos..?
Joe Rogan and Graham Hancock are looking for archeologists who are willing to debate Hancock on the JRE
He and Minimnuteman should team up and do a Milo tag team takedown of Graham Hancock and Joe Rogan.
Even though he’s probably wrong about allot if stuff imo its unfair that they banned him from all these speaking events and debates
debates are entrirely performative. you rarely see scientists debating because the research should speak for itself, and hancocks research is worth less than dogshit
@@Gnochigremlin he's not simply wrong, he's intellectually dishonest. That's why he's ignored and not provided a serious platform.
I bet there are hundreds of archaeologists who would love to square up to the old fraud, so if they are serious about it there would be no problem. But don't hold your breath.
There is not a chance in Hell that old Hancock would debate any real archaeologist, he hasn't got the guts. And don't mention Zahi Hawass, that was never even meant to be a debate.
I don't want to imply that if you believe in Hancock's ideas you are an idiot. He is really an excellent public speaker and very good at framing the debate in terms of humbly asking questions, connecting the dots. In reality, regardless of the evidence, he has already drawn his conclusions. I feel like his ideas are based in his religious and spiritual beliefs rather than the archaeological evidence and I just fundamentally disagree with his conclusions.
Thanks for watching!
Well put, hearing him speak is fascinating and makes you want to believe that ancient civilization stretches back much further but alas, we need way more supporting evidence to take his claims more seriously.
In short, Graham's speeches are fun and entertaining.
@Ben Ghazi Hancock psychofan here. I think calling him a charlatan is too strong a word, and anyone who does such ad hominem attacks is not helping the debate. Bring arguments like Stefan does. And Stefan's critique in this video does not cover all the work of Hancock, who many times asks good questions, thus contributing to the field of archaeology.
You are too gentlemanly.
I was just waiting for this type of video from someone since i have come to know about his theories from JRE podcast. Thankas for providing the exact what i needed.
Hancock’s ideas make tripping on DMT more fun and that’s not nothing
Graham makes quite the claim, which makes a series of profitable books. And therein lies the rub.
L. Ron Hubbard is another example of a guy making wild claims, whilst selling profitable books, and gaining a legion of hapless disciples in the process.
Hancock definitely has the L. R H kinda claims!!
What are you people on? How does something logical based of findings and research compare to a guy who makes believe aliens flew into a volcano to create life? 😂😂😂
@@helygg8892
If you think that Hancocks claims are logical then you really don't know much about archeology and/or scientific thinking. And apparently you haven't looked at the many claims Hancock has made and the dishonesty he has been caught with. Maybe you want to watch a video called "TV tricks of the trade - Quotes and cutaways". There's an interesting bit about Hancock at the end, which reveals how he's willing to dishonestly edit interviews to make people say the opposite of what they actually said. How can you trust such a person to give you the full picture or even honestly report what scientists are saying?
Hancock's bizarre claims appear and develop in line with the next book and book tour.
L. Ron Hubbard is the perfect analogy!
Came here after watching the Netflix show. Some red flags that were raised for me as a layman:
1. Most of the discoveries and data Hancock relies upon were collected by the very people he tells us not to trust--the archaeologists.
2. If there were compelling evidence of an older civilization, isn't it the ARCHAEOLOGISTS who would be tripping over each other to find proof? It's not a cult, it's a profession, and people get into it because this kind of thing excites them, and they want to be part of a major discovery.
3. Hancock has the entire story laid out in his mind about exactly what happened, and that's not how science is supposed to work. If he simply said "civilization might be older than we think" and left it at that, he'd actually have a point.
4. The "evidence," while perhaps compelling on a case-by-case basis, is strung together haphazardly to fit his preconceived narrative. No other possibilities are seriously considered. It's like your toilet flushing in the next room and immediately assuming it's a ghost.
4. Does he have something to gain from promoting his theories? Yes. Does he have something to lose if proven wrong? Not really.
In conclusion, Hancock is selling us a tantalizing story (and probably making good money from it). He's not a scientist, so he doesn't risk his career by doing so. The "orthodoxy is bad, keep an open mind" argument is not evidence. It proves nothing.
#1 is the main reason I truly detest Hancock.
It takes a special kind of con artist &sshole to demonise the very people whose work makes your cons possible.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, he has zero moral center - he will say whatever keeps those sweet greenbacks flowing in his direction.
"Hancock has the entire story laid out in his mind about exactly what happened, and that's not how science is supposed to work"
This is also exactly what he claims academia are doing with their "dogmatic views" on the subject.
He basically projects everything bad he is doing onto archaeologists.
One of these days some of his mega fans are going to attack those hardworking archaeologists and he wont care one bit.
What a pile of about nonsense, Hancock visits sites that archaeologists can’t properly explain. He has ever reason to distrust them given their behaviour to him and themselves of the last 35 years. You should look at how many careers have been ruined by archaeologists refusal to accept or investigate new evidence. Yes he does have a story laid out in his head he is a journalist offering an alternative point of view by collecting information that science can’t explain. He does consider other possibilities but the evidence at these sites generally doesn’t fit the mainstream narrative so he challenges it. You then get clowns like Milo who tell us Hancock is wrong but don’t offer any form of explanation for the sites they just throw a load of theory out there and pretend it’s the answer.
@@Bingobanana4789 Real scientists don’t offer an explanation until there is enough evidence to prove it.
@@dakotamorlan2797 well that would go against every scientific theory ever told then wouldn’t it. There have been a multitude of scientific theories published over the years, how many of Einstein’s theories did he publish?? Your statement is shambolic at best.
My "favorite" thing about Hancock and his fans is that theyll take simple critques from experts in the field as scathing personal attacks. If someone is going to make assertions about something in any field (and this is what he does. He doesnt 'just ask questions' or only report on what he finds. He asserts that "mainstream history" is wrong) than anyone, regardless of standing in that area should expect and welcome critques. But instead they take being told their wrong as an insult/attack and completely throw out over a hundred years science to bolster their agrument.
No they (experts) just come across like smug douchebags, unlikeable on every level.
He also makes out any rebuttal is just Big Archaeology trying to hide the truth from us and can therefore be ignored. The idea of archaeologists being some conspiracy network is pretty funny to me.
They never critique him though. They just throw out words like "pseudo-scientist" but never explain WHY he is wrong. I'm not saying that he is right but I have no respect for those guys.
I hate "spirituality" though, and I don't think Hancock is right about anything.
It’s so funny that there is archeology beef
@@AlexH8280 That's your opinion, and if you hate the experts, you are welcome to study the field and gain a proper grounding to combat the experts. Archaeologists want to be wrong; we want to be corrected, but we need good scholarship for us to accept the claims.
Be the change you want to see in the world. If you can't do that and would rather just call us "smug douchebags" then go right ahead, just don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
We might also add that Graham Hancock has never been seen with a plastic spoon.
His spoons are from the only remaining material of Atlantis
a spoon is often attributed to a simple minded twit
Graham ‘Spoonless’ Hancock
Spoons don’t exist
Graham Hancock new book "The Power of an English Accent in America"
Or the power of fooling Joe Rogan Fans
😂😂without that accent Joe would have hit him with a spinning side kick.
Accents are funny like that since even people with PhD's from the american south get treated like they're idiots but crazy people with Received Pronunciation are viewed as an authority worth listening too. A man with a PhD in physics would be viewed with skepticism if he had a Cajun or Arkansas accent while you could have a guy talk about ancient aliens and so long as he spoke the Queens English you'd at least be tempted to hear him out when he starts talking about alien cats teaching Egyptians how to build pyramids.
Lmao
I have been fascinated by Hancock’s stories since forever. I really enjoy reading his novels.
But he does the classic “we don’t know so therefor I can make up anything that sounds cool” fallacy. I don’t know what made that weird thud sound at night, so instead of accepting that or looking for evidence I get to make up a story about haunting ghosts and how the elite are keeping it a secret and controlling our memories through genetically modified food which is all kept secret by people with “incentives”.
We don’t know every fact about the world so therefor I get to make up a story and if you don’t agree you are just “closed off” or part of some conspiracy to suppress the truth. It is all just after the fact justification.
And that is what it is, a cool story. It is a sublime theme, faint distant memories of great past completely destroyed by unimaginable terror. Beauty, horror and delight. Would make a great novel.
What do you think of his(hanacocks) new Netflix series
@@bobnewton1064 To be honest I was kinda underwhelmed. To me the leap from “look at all these amazing and puzzling old structures” to “this points to a prehistoric civilization” is way too big.
I used to be fascinated about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Then I grew up.
@@bobnewton1064 he spends half the time in his series attempting to convince the viewer that mainstream archeology is covering everything up. That they refuse to look at good evidence.
I suppose that is easy to believe when you've never taken much time to learn about what archaeologists actually do.
@@jjackomin I bet you're religious tho 😅
Your point about staple crop distribution is fantastic. In fact, the whole video is the best, most succinct, rebuttal to Hancock/the pre-Younger Dryas civilization premise that I’ve seen.
There's a reason hancock appears in small tents in front of DOZENS of people.
i didnt even consider the food! its the simplest things that are the real proof.
@@WillMack38Nah the aliens gave everyone tomato but not everyone liked them so they never bothered to grow them. Duh. Plus it was too cold in some climates. Duh. And there was a big war about how to pronounce tomato which wiped a lot of tomatos out in some regions. Duh. Hancock logic. Pseudoscience is the best science.
I still think there’s a reasonable degree of doubt that would allow us to hypothesize that the Neolithic period and the implementation of agriculture may have happened much earlier into the ice age and in a different manner than we currently perceive. There are many studies being conducted on suitable and extreme growing conditions of various plant species and how different environmental and biological factors could affect the vegetative growth and production of crops. I personally maintain my own hypothesis that humanity had surpassed hunting and gathering long before the beginning of the Neolithic we put at around 12,000 years ago. I in no way agree with graham that there was a globe spanning ancient pre-younger dryas civilization but I do think that there’s a lot more to humanity’s history with agronomy.
@@Substance2020 there’s a reason why after 30 years his theories have got stronger and stronger
they never carried tomato because the pocket wasn't invented till the 16th century
@Nick Nack Yeah, but they probably used the bags to carry important stuff, like DMT...
Women are still trying to get dresses with pockets ten thousand years later...
No, it was because all the psychic refrigerators were off in space. You have to understand, they knew they'd want tomato's 'tomorrow' it's just that their transcendent view of time means that 'tomorrow' is on the universe scale of time. /s
That is the most idiotic comment I have ever heard on You Tube.
@@s1rmunchalot Drink the stuff under your sink.
Wholeheartedly agree with all this . Fun fact- The domestication of the humble Bourbon biscuit was the catalyst for the little known first British empire (25,000 BC) Right- where’s my million quid book deal?
@
History Time
I suddenly have the feeling that I have not lived a full life not have indulged in the culinary pleasure of a Bourbon biscuit
Custard creams are better
@@VoicesofthePast You all deserve panty splatter art snacks.
History Time what would you do with a million Squid?
Everyone knows Bourbons are still wild what are you talking about?
Haha! Your videos are deeeeeply entertaining! Love it! Easy subscription from me, sir! Keep it up!
The problem with folks like Hancock isn't their basic notion, namely that it is likely that there are periods of human prehistory about which our current concepts are incomplete or incorrect. The problem comes from wild extrapolation of this basic notion.
It is not unreasonable to think that during the last ice age an unknown culture or cultures possibly existed in areas that were inundated by rising sea levels at the end of the ice age. Cultures similar in technology to the Funnel Beaker culture, or Beaded Ware culture or perhaps even the Cucuteni-Trypillia culture might have existed and traded with one another during the last ice age. But to go from that to a globe spanning mother culture that spun off all the ancient civilizations is a huge leap.
Well exactly. Of course there’s so much about prehistory that we don’t know, or don’t understand well. But a society on the scale of the British empire is just too much, we have to be guided by the evidence, not our fantasies.
@@StefanMilo
Exactly. It would be extremely interesting if Hancock's ideas were true - but it would also be extremely interesting to be able to hop aboard the Millennium Falcon and go for a spin. I have a feeling that both are equally likely. 😁
One would also expect to see some traces of their civilization further inland too, just like how there are a bunch of other ancient temples and cities located much further inland. Hancock’s theories rest upon the notion that this lost ancient civilization only existed along the coastlines, but why would that be the case when the fossil record shows a lot of large game further inland? Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, to which GH has none.
Ockham's razor. While his followers think the lack of evidence is the evidence of the civilization wiped out in the horribly painful and catastrophic event. Ockham's razor suggests an easier and far simpler explanation - there was no civilization in the first place! Case closed, next! ;)
@@StefanMilo I've seen this video before, then lost it and looked around without remembering it, and then finally finding it again somehow because CZcams.
i like how this is recorded at the woodshed, with a plastic spoon
And he keeps asking “Where are the cities that this civilization has built?”
After just 1000 years, there won’t be any trace of Stephan’s house or shed. That plastic spoon is the sturdiest material we see in his yard. Maybe these ancient people had homes just like Stephan? ;0)
It is an outside dunny...!
Just like his video...!
When the truth is far less exciting than Atlantean extraterrestrials, funding doesn't come flooding in, and Rogan couldn't get as many suckers to lap it up.
Lmfao
You are so blind sir
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Carl Sagan was Not an expert in archaeology but I find Sagans quote fits well here.
Also the Hitchens quote: what that can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Sagan was into aliens and pot. It is possible to entertain ideas without believing them. Listen a bit to Hancock, apart from some slips of the tongue, the man is careful in affirming anything. As Milo says, he keeps saying that the connecting of the dots seem to point in one direction, which is his belief system. In my opinion Hancock presents plenty of evidence that should make one more ooen minded about what we know of the past.
@@ponch0partout But that's not science at all. It's just wishful thinking.
I think his other quote holds true as well "Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence". But I think his first quote is more appropriate. For example just because we haven't found Sassquatch, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but to prove it does exist means we need evidence that shows humanoid DNA that matches no known extant hominoid. Surprisingly we do have such extraordinary findings recently from hair samples. Humanoid DNA that matches no known great ape nor human relative, now living.
Corrupt, self-interested mainstream science makes all kinda of extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. Sometimes without any real evidence at all. Therefore, I find the mainstream hypocritical and unworthy to set the standard or guidelines by which other scientists must abide.
Graham Hancock had such a huge potential to be an amazing fantasy and historical fiction writer. It's a wasted talent to be honest - he is a creative guy afterall.
Maybe he should take a leaf out of L. Ron Hubbard's book and start a religion.
He is a fiction writer and he knows it He just puts on and act of being a revolutionary thinker fighting "big science" to boost his book sales by marketing to losers who think they're smarter than everyone.
What if he's right?
it's basically what he is but he's tapped into the a larhe swath of the population that feel better blaming "mainstream" scientist and historians for their ignorance
@@thai2go then he should prove it
It feels like GH made an interesting plot for a story and tried to shoehorn it into human history whichever way he could, “oh they don’t have tools… oh I mean of course they didn’t have tools! They were so smart.. that-that they didn’t need tools!!!”
“New unexplained archeological find? You mean the denisovans?.. or should I say, Atlanteans?😮”
what tools would survive 20k years in salt water. titanice well almost be gone in 100 years.
@@MegaDixen Buildings last under saltwater. Bricks also last under water. But we have zero remnants of those in the sea now do we?
@@MegaDixen We’ve found wooden shipwrecks in the Mediterranean dated to the Late Bronze Age (or about 1,300 BCE).
Animal bones and tools have been found in the North Sea dating back thousands of years to the time that the British Isles were connected to mainland Europe. One such find I can recall is the bones of a Homotherium dated to around 28,000 years ago.
@@MegaDixenso whose to say it wasn’t just Bigfoot instead of this Atlantis theory, all since GH sources are pseudoscientists, outdated, or maps from when most continents already looked distorted. It’s an interesting idea on paper but if it can’t hold up to a modicum of criticism, doesn’t it tell you the wools been pulled over your eyes? Do I believe that humans 20,000 years ago were once advanced? Absolutely, you’d be a fool not to. Do I believe there had to be telekinetic Atlanteans who traveled the earth to teach people about the world just because they wanted to? No. Thats ridiculous. Maybe instead of just taking what GH says at face value, actually look at where he gets his information from. Whose to say, I don’t know, left to our own devices for long enough, intelligence breeds progress? Is it so crazy to believe early humans were just more capable then we believe, that instead there’s actual credibility in fantasy story. A story whose writer is embarrassingly upset while his little theory isn’t taken seriously while also explaining why no one will ever find anything about them. The burden of proof has always been on GH and despite his best efforts, he’s only convinced those who aren’t willing to think for themselves.
The name Stefan Milo is Ancient Atlantean for "Spoon Microphone".
lololol
deserves more clout
Is Atlantean a Latin or Proto-Indo-European sibling? I mean Stefan-Spoon, and Milo-Microphone are kinda similar.
@@RosalioRedPanda Is that you, Graham?
To be fair. I always assumed Hancock was suggesting an interesting thought experiment on if civilisation could be older than what we currently accept. Given the Gobekli Tepi find, then it's an interesting question. I don't ever remembering him pushing this as some kind of established fact , but again I've always viewed as I said. An interesting thought exercise.
Yeah, he's got some really basic stuff that's solid, then he likes to wildly speculate based on relatively certain things that the "mainstream" hasn't taken into account in popular narratives
his views are def painted in a negative light because it highlights the shortcomings of history and archaeology.
How advanced these potential former civilizations were, is unknown. But I think most of us followers of Hancock don’t assume they had high speed internet and flying cars
@@tomzzo There is zero evidence for Hancocks ancient empire. No skeletons, no tools, no genetic markers in modern populations. But we are able to find simple firepits dated 300 000 years old.
@donwharrison What is your view on Schoch's sphinx water erosion hypothesis? It's one of the most used "evidence" by the alternative community. I have a background in history/archaeology and it's really amusing to look at all the false information these "alternative researchers" are showing, but I have no training in geology so I can't elaborate on that subject.
He has at least one interview with Joe Rogan where he is pushing clearly coocoo ideas as "facts not yet embraced by the mainstream". It is entirely possible that certain things about human civilization or homo sapiens are older than we thought. Possibly not "significantly" (meaning on a geological timescale) older, but older. Give or take a couple of centuries or milennia. Example: for a long time it was thought that homo sapiens appeared 100.000 years ago. Then that was pushed out to 200.000. Now we have 300.000 year old fossils from North Africa.
i love the history of the earth and humans since freshman yr of college. i wtached grahams recent netflix series all the way thru and planned on doing research of my own becuase 1. i thought it was fugazzi but he seemed to make decent sense of it 2. im the last thing from an archeologist (accountant) and figured there was someone who could debunk his theories with better background than myself and pretty obbvious objections. case in point this video. i love things like this, were if i didnt know better to fact check graham, i would believe or be open to his ideas. but folk like you help me see the other things he chooses to ignore
I hope you also found Stefan Milo's new episode on the netflix series czcams.com/video/341Lv8JLLV4/video.html
That s why experts are experts, to each is own field. I m expert in windows for houses and wintergardens, i dont play archeologists lol
@@kettelbe that's what baffles me the most sometimes these days, many ppl don't seem to even ask about ppl's scientific background or motives anymore, it's just like, if a theory sounds the smallest bit interesting and believable, it's fair play to lots of folks out there...
@@mowgli8945 Shits scary. And before the internet, before these gullible mouth breathers had a chance to assimilate fellow likeminded smooth brains, these dumb fucks would’ve been relegated to the stool in the back corner of the classroom with a dunce cap on.
And before that, involuntarily admitted to the psych ward in a straight jacket.
And before that, thrown off a cliff with a broom between their legs to see if they would fly away.
And before that, forced into a pillory in the middle of town, with their beliefs plastered to the front for all the townspeople to read and laugh at while throwing tomatoes at them.
The fuckin internet bro… I love it and I hate it.
This series would be perfect also for the "History" Channel, its great storytelling without a single ounce of hard evidence. "IF this happened and IF this happened its safe to assume THIS happened" sure but there's no hard evidence IT did happen.
Thank you for this video!
I love how you say graham takes everything as a personal atack and not an atack on his work and then you put a photoshoped image of him to make fun of him..
Graham is renown for changing his mind based on new data. In 20+ hours of video, he’s never once shown any signs of taking any criticism as a personal attack.
It is very clear from listening to this guy vs Hancock, Hancock comes across as the smarter, more articulate and clearer thinker.
@@o6uoq agreed 100%
This is how "established academia" works. Ignore the evidence, ignore other sciences and attack the person (this has happened several times with the Clovis timeline established in North America...and despite that has been overturned, and sadly several careers have sadly been ruined thanks to "accepted academia"). Adhering to paradigms established two hundred years ago by archaeologists and applying any new discoveries to those paradigms and rejecting those that don't isn't science at all. At 15:54 he says native Americans did indeed come from Asia to the Americas, completely ignoring the fact that DNA studies have overturned that meme. What this guy preaches is not science...it's dogma, and because dogma has been established into academic science it's nearly become a religion. Our species has been in existence for 300,000 years. Doesn't it seem unnatural that this intelligent, inventive, creative being existed for 288,000 years before hunter/gatherers managed to develop civilizations (taking Gobekli Tepe as a beginning point for civilization)? Adding to that, it's wrong to assume that an extinct civilization progressed the same way we did because we're not digging up rusty can openers and plastic packaging. To suggest this means there were no advanced civilizations before us is outrageously ignorant, IMO.
@@o6uoq Does this head to head analyse of yours influence the way you critique the content of the debate? Like, do you agree with Hancock, not beause his argument and his logic or more concrete, but beause you like him more as an human being/scientist?
You should leave out all things human when confronting this debates in a sceptical way. Just look at them as person A and person B, and then look at their arguments and their reasoning. The rest will only serve as White noise.
@@pukel95 thanks for the life tip but my observation is based on studying Egyptology since high school and Hancock being the only one I know of who is constantly working to contradict himself and is open-minded to change and the art of the possible.
Graham Hancock is drying his tears with Joe Rogan's listeners cash after watching this.
??? Rogan doesn't pay his guests.
@@tonedumbharry Book sales
This video fits perfectly with the arrival of the new Netflix series Ancient Apocalypses
A lot of the points he mentioned don't applies to the Netflix series. It seems the Netflix series took out some of his more extreme theories
@@Gringogay he keeps being wrong
@@conner13.c16 who?
I don't belive his more extreme beliefs, but I have an open mind about there being some advanced civilizations further back then we thought possible. And no I'm not talking about psychic pyramid building giants.
@@Gringogay I mean, Graham Hancock is wrong. But I agree with you about being open minded regarding the lost civilization topic, yet there are no carbon emotions recorded during the ice age so I am a bit skeptical about it
However, the same arguments would have been made about Gobleki Tepe? If there was a civilization in 9000BC capable of constructing a megalithic complex of this scale, we would have found evidence of it by now. Before the discovery of Gobleki Tepe, archaeologists concluded that its impossible. They argued that the sphinx cannot be from 9000bc, because a megalithic site simply does not exist in 9000bc.
So it's better to assume something before the evidence is produced?
@@jellyrollthunder3625 The rational position would be to admit that we don't really know for sure. If the established pre-historical timeline is constantly being overturned (e.g. G.Tepe, pre-clovis sites), how reliable is the latest one? It means that the current body of archeological evidence is very incomplete. "We would have found evidence of it by now" is a mistake. The latest accepted timeline is just speculation, but archeologists constantly make the mistake of taking it as established dogmatic fact.
@@jellyrollthunder3625 One example was a Scientific American article by Michael Shermer attacking Hancock. Even though only 10% of Goblekli Tepe was excavated, Shermer concluded that it was "a ceremonial religious site, not a city-there is no evidence that anyone lived there." There was a strong reluctance to allow for the possibility of domestication because it further contradicts established dogma and timeline. Soon after, evidence of domestication was found - rainwater harvesting, grinding stones, dwellings. We now think that Goblekli Tepe was a permanent settlement.
Same for the discovery of pre-clovis sites, new theories were at first ridiculed because it contradicted "established facts".
@@bierdlll jelly has gone quiet all of a sudden?
what archaeologist said this was impossible before the discovery of Gobekli Tepe? Nevali Cori was discovered 10 years prior and dated 8400 bce. also the walls of Jerico were originally dated to be 9000 bce in 1952. That's also not why they think the Sphinx is 4500 years old "because a megalithic site simply does not exist in 9000bc" it's thought to be modelled after a specific emperor. the only argument to support it saying stone doesn't erode that quickly as if sandstorms doent erode stone (which was originally claimed by a 1950's french mystic Schwaller de Lubicz)
Just like there is a scientific method, there is a historical method. It is not allowed to bypass these methods.
Please elaborate on the historical method, no shade intended just genuine curiosity
@@JesusChrist8451 -- I imagine he means the exact same as the scientific method; That any historical theory looking to be passed as historical fact withstands the scrutiny, testability and research of his peers.
In science, nothing is cleared unless it can be repeated. I suppose the only difference with history is that not all historians and archeologists enter the field with the same scientific backgrounds, and thus interpretation is a far more serious problem.
For example, any historian looking to be validated in their understanding of history only needs to find other historians with their exact background and through sheer numbers can insist what is historical fact. It's a far more political arena than science, and therefore the methodology for determining what is and isn't true is far less accurate.
As an outsider, though, I would think any wise historian or archeologist trying to get to the bottom of something would at least lean on process of elimination to determine which theories are not true -- even if you can't pinpoint the exact theory or timetable that is. This is where I side heavily with Graham Hancock in his research, as he's already proven that historical consensus on some subjects is absolutely not true... And even with proof is not taken seriously. That has a lot to do with why many think that everything he proposes is true. The average person may not know anything about history or about dating organic materials, but they know when someone seems honest, and, compared to most archeologists and historians, Graham Hancock most certainly wins the Appearance of Integrity battle.
Yes scientific method free of ego, politics or religion.
@@rickycouture7224 sad but true, I’ve noticed there are far too many examples of Indians Jones wannabes out there in the field of archeology and too many political hacks in the field of history.
Archeology should be more than glorified grave robbing, and history should ALWAYS remain objective, but that’s easier said than done when we add humans to the equation, too many possible variables to try and get a consistent solution. Science is really good as an academic field because everything is meticulously methodical. Things have to be proven again and again for it to be seen as a truth, but when dealing with the unknown mysteries of our past there’s no real overarching structure to define how discoveries are made. Not to say the entire batch is spoiled by a few rotten apples, but those bad experiences and examples can easily cast the whole field into question unfortunately.
Hancock was on joe rogan and said archaeology was not a science...
I am always super delighted to watch someone concretely discredit Graham Hancock’s nonsense. Makes my whole day.
Except for the part that underwater archaeology has not mapped the bottom of the Mediterranean (look at the search for Alexandria), and the crops? They're all in South America.
@@withnail-and-i . Don’t forget the aliens, the Masonic conspiracy and Atlantida.
@@desiderata8811 Yeah sure, that's a totally logical follow up to my message... Weirdo.
Concretely 😭😂
@@withnail-and-itell graham to do his own diggings....
Was trippin on lsd watching grahams latest netflix series and I thought it was quite thought provoking but something was definately off.. still trippin but doing my research for the truth from real archeologist and the real Human story is even more amazing than what Hancock suggest imo.
Mind=blown
Atleast he has gotten me interested in archeology at all And I applaud Hancock for that atleast.
Real archeologists who are they?? Do you mean those people that proclaim this is how history went only for that to be wrong and then spend the next 30 years stopping science moving forward because they can’t admit they were wrong
The real human story?? seems you’ve tripped and landed with your head up your hole cause no one knows the real human story
@Bingobanana
How did you extract 'knows the entirety of human history' from the comment above.
Clearly the comment is expressing that Hancock's little assertions and appeals to some mysterious fairy-tale people aren't a match for the very human, and very real things we do know about myriad cultural and societal progressions, structures, and histories.
@@Petticca I didn’t extract ‘knows the entirety of human history’ from the comment. I stated the real human story which is what was said in the comment above. You can twist what someone says to suit your own narrative all you want but it makes you look rather pathetic that you can’t read correctly
Cool video! I'm curious, as there is an interesting proposal around the Sphinx water erosion - why do you say that sounds implausible?
czcams.com/video/DaJWEjimeDM/video.html
What about the underwater pyramids on the coast of Japan and in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, the Azores. Same pyramids found in the Amazon as in China.
Where is the historical account on any of this?
@Rienk Kroese I just looked up the Japanese pyramids (yonaguni). For what it's worth, Robert Schoch and John Anthony West have said that they think they're naturally occurring. And those 2 typically Side with Hancock's worldview. I also saw some pictures of underwater pyramids but they looked cgi or doctored or whatever.
Brace for impact everybody
Nice to see you here!
Got turned onto you through tigerstar. Same with this channel I think, actually. Thanks for making the content you do. There’s only one problem with it- I always want to go read the sources, adding more to my reading backlog. Your references lists are fantastic, and I appreciate you so much for that.
Yeah, the fans and followers don’t like their pseudo-archaeology and ancient super dudes challenged.
impact is actually quite fitting lol even though stefan never mentioned it (FYI the impact 13k years ago is proven now)
@@phillywister9957 No, it's been rebutted - www.pnas.org/content/111/21/E2162
The best thing about outlandish theories, such as flat earth theory, is that it gives common people the incentive to learn in order to disprove their claims.
There u go... Silver lining
Or double down on their emotions and make a -career- *religion* out of it.
Flat earth? Really? You are really going to do that. You have zero credibility now
Would that it were... I find it more often makes people just not want to Get involved... whatever it is. Easier to let someone else handle the hostility... Hancock mechanism is an impish projection, “mommy, the big boys are picking on me...“ it is how he has built his following, ‘Victimhood.”
@@tomzzo I suppose if you do enough hallucinogens then Hancock seems plausible... otherwise it just shows profound gullibility, if you buy such pretentious made-up crap.
Hancock indirectly and serendipitously sent thousands to your channel. Your well sourced and to the point rebuttal has converted many inquisitive archeological laypersons who came across Hancock's incredible hypothesis (me for one).
I'm sharing with everyone I discussed Hancock with and have bookmarked this episode for instant rebuttal.
You're way too easily influenced, buddy.
@@safarit678 for real
@@show_me_your_kitties many people are who don’t know anything on this subject.
What do you expect?
@@Maximilian-Schmidt yes, what are you trying to get at?
@@safarit678 I'm not your buddy, guy.
I'm not your guy, friend.
I'm not your friend, buddy.
Do you believe Hancock is correct or do you believe this guy?
I like that this guy presents all the different knowledge, theories and possibilities that we know of and gives us an idea of how much support there is for each view and evidence as well as limitations. It seems honest.
I know nothing of Hancock but a quick Google makes it seem that he's not so keen on being completely honest but instead tries to put forward an idea he has of the world and only provides the evidence to support his view instead of being honest and providing all of the evidence even if that goes against his personal position.
Do you follow the evidence wherever it leads or do you prefer to have a guy who's a stoner for decades and doesn't follow the evidence?
Me at the start of this video: "Who's Hancock?"
Me at 4:09: "Right, heard all I ever need to know."
He seems to be forgetting the whole cataclysm thing.
You seem to be forgetting the whole evidence thing.
@@deantunkara1567 no that's exactly my point
Nobody has the chops to debate Carlson on that issue. Overwhelming proof of an almost incomprehensible level of destruction. Easily capable of erasing any and all signs of anything and anyone unfortunate enough to be within range. Not to mention the aftermath and chaos of surviving.
@@gammon1183 they should have been arsed politely then😂😂😂
Except he literally mentioned it in this vid.
The spoon is what allows him to hide his illuminate lizard form
hes trying to spoon feed us!
Poop scoop
That yard is probably scattered with all forms of lizards
But lizards don't usually glow in the dark.
I'd like to know your thoughts on the amazon and all the videos and articles coming out about it and the civilizations that people are saying existed there as well.
If the claim is “there was an advanced global civilization that had telepathic powers and more advanced technology than our own” I agree with this dismantling.
If the claim is “select groups of individuals were able to cross oceans long before the mass migration via the land bridge and probably created megalithic architecture that has been swallowed by Earth via natural disasters and climate change” that’s entirely different and 100% plausible.
We have no fucking clue what would happen to Earth today if a cataclysmic comet or solar storm hit us. Something that makes Tunguska look like a pebble.
If humans have been “anatomically modern” for hundreds of thousands of years I think it’s perfectly reasonable that there could have been civilizations the evidence for which is buried under a mile of debris.
Plausible perhaps but it's not just that there's no evidence for it, it's disproven by the evidence that exists. Hancock argues for a cataclysm that would have wiped out the civilization pre Younger Dryas in his latest series. The archaeology suggests nothing of the sort: continuity of the material culture that came before Clovis and after.
I've looked at the temperature graphs for the last 100,000 years. There are some periods of stable-ish temps that may have allowd the modern human to set down more permanent roots. Do I think they built a super empire. No. But I find it plausible that there are structures out there from over 10,000 years ago. Not big ones. Huts and stuff maybe a standing stone or two.
We keep being told that we have an unpresidented stable temperature at the moment but I don't think people realise how crazy it is. It's practicly flat. Makes me even more worried about global warming. People just assume that it will all work out. It very well might not.
Actually, large bollide collision events DO leave a significant mark in the geological record, from tsunami events to Iridium anomalies. Hancock clai.s that the Younger Dryas was cataclysmic event of global proportions that wiped civilizations off the planet, yet there is scant evidence of this and plenty of evidence that it never happened at all.
@@zarhanfastfire3209 but there’s plenty of evidence that points towards serious cosmic impacts to kick start the younger dryas. So as the guy that wrote the comment said it’s certainly plausible and no archeology doesn’t show continuity. The amount of things that pop up all over the world gobekli Tepe, the 40,000 and older cave art in various locations, the 12,000 year old aboriginal Australian dna found in the Amazon, what they are now finding in the Amazon certainly doesn’t not show any form of continuity in the archaeology story.
@Bingobanana
If you claim that there's "plenty of evidence", my question becomes how do _you_ know this?
It's going to come down to either:
The study, research and published findings from the scientific experts in the relevant fields.
Or it is not.
If this plethora of evidence is being presented correctly, it should be accurately representing the _current scientific consensus_ of the expert's who are the _source_ of this "plenty of evidence" for event X, or Y, or whatever. In other words, those scientists would be the ones making the claim about their own findings, and moreover their work will have been transparent, and accessible to the rest of their field, and there would be a general consensus that the conclusions are drawn correctly from the evidence.
If you have anyone pointing out how much "evidence" there is for something that _no one else_ who is actually expert enough to evaluate the source of this evidence, claims, then either the person who said that is lying or, the _all_ the dissenting scientists are...
And if you are leaning towards the entire academic field is lying, rather than one guy, then the question becomes:
Why would anyone use the research, data and findings from a field that they "know" is made up of "experts" who are either too stupid to draw the correct conclusions from their own work, or too dishonest to...
The knowledge you have of the climate event in question comes from the very scientists and field of study that are also supposed to be too stupid, or too full of sht, to be correct about anything historical climate, does it not?
This should be enough to have you pause and think about it for a moment.
I love Graham Hancock as the source of a fantastic, alternative-history fantasy. I like to listen to him in the same way I like to read the history of Middle Earth. His material makes me think and question, but I have never taken it as factually grounded. So much of his interpretation seems internally referential, if you get my meaning.
Same here, know its to be taken with a grain of salt but a fun thought exercise nonetheless... Also amazed with megaliths, especially in Peru.
Middle-earth is more rooted in reality, to be honest
Yup agreed! Now lets give the guy some credit tho: he did seem to have a deeper understanding of the relationship between the zodiac and the megalithic builders (as Martin Sweatman suggests) and he did support the impact theory 20 years before it had so much overwhelming evidence. Other than that, the super civilizations, the psychic powers and all that nonsense its pure bull crap.
@@elian958 I was just about to write the same thing
Keto•tic youre the one. i guess you didnt look up gobleki, theopetra or padang , thats coooool maaaannn keep talking
I blame the Historychannologists
Turn off cable TV people. Seriously
The major recent source of Graham Hancock's recent influence is his interviews on Joe Rogan's online show. Unfortunately, Rogan has a lot of subscribers and has a lot of influence. His last interview with Hancock got over 8 million views. The scientific world better start adapting and going on shows like his and refuting Hancock's claims otherwise the general public will continue to be misled.
Stefan does a good job in this video, but he has 43K subscribers and Rogan has nearly 9 million.
But ancient astronaut conspiracy theorists say......🤣🤣🤪
@@jps101574 unfortunately academics tend to be about 30 years behind the public information arms race, and considering how old and popular books like Chariots of the Gods are this has been this way for half a century or more minimum
Upcycle Electronics I agree with you 100percent. Living with the faires
When we learned about history in school, especially the different ages like copper, bronze, iron etc, it was like a clear limitation to what could be done with in example copper and bronze and when we came to iron it was much better and created fantastic work by humans. And then when we came to the copper age and the teacher with a small smile on the face said: in the copper age we built these Great Pyramids" litterary half the class laughed. It makes zero sense what so ever even to a child. Our teacher claimed we would figure it out when archaeologist dig deeper. This was 30 years ago and almost nothing has changed. The Sphinx, the Sphinx temple, the Great Pyramids, the Karnak temple and so much more are accredited to a copper aged civilization.
The reason the Sphinx are dated to 4500 years old, is because it`s the oldest we knew back then. Now we know about Gobekli Tepe wich is 12.000 year old. If humans could create the Gobekli Tepe 8-12.000 years ago, they could also have created the Sphinx much earlier than 4500 years ago.
So to only trust what you are teached, and not seek further information is not good either, it`s important to think about several aspects as new information become available with the passage of time.
I used to read Graham Hancock back in the days when he was writing about the Great Pyramid. Some of his points made sense (or at least raised interesting questions); he even gathered a few specialists who concurred with him about some specific details like the water runoff at the basin around the Sphinx. OK, that was fine & interesting. He followed up with his "search" for the Ark of the Covenant - which was a fun travelogue sprinkled with neat details from historical records and old religious documents. But then ... THEN ... then he had to write new books, find new theories, make increasingly grander claims ... with the result being a bizarre mishmash of bogus archaeology. It was sad to see such a smart writer descend into Von Daniken fever-dreams.
You've got that wrong I'm afraid, The Sign and The Seal was his first book on ancient history.
@@Ramasita13 Maybe I'm remembering the order in which I read them, not the order of publication. Still, I think it's a fair assessment that as he has continued to write, his books have strayed farther from the fields of science and technology. I find that some begin with an interesting and accurate kernel, which expands into assumptions, presumptions and suppositions, eventually arriving at a wild claim. It's as if he allows his imagination to overpower rational thought. His enthusiasm and writing skill continue to entertain, but not enlighten.
@@rgnyc well he's an author first and foremost. to blame him for doing author things is not fair I'd wager. but the theories in his books are fun to ponder with.
I wouldn't shame him for wanting to sell books to a broader audience that's more perceptible to a fairytale with reality sprinkled on it either, than a rather bone dry factual piece with tons of scientific evidence for a couple handful of pros.
but the basic idea of smth like that of a more advanced human civilization which was present way before we previously knew would be smth that I wouldn't call bogus if they found evidence of it one day.
not to the point of seafaring on the level of the British Empire... but agriculture and some advanced mathematics? yeah sure. doesn't have to be taught either. pretty sure most ppl discovered similar stuff around the globe without knowing of each other all the time. still do.
as long as ppl have a common ground at which they base their knowledge on - may be advanced chemistry in the modern world, or astronomy in the ancient world - they'll likely end up at a similar conclusion after a certain period of time.
Academic: After considering all of the relevant, up to date literature on the subject, I have to say Im not sure.
Internet surfer (with a cursory understanding of any science): I can say with certainty that an ancient globe spanning civilization existed.
The former is open to new information.
The latter is closed minded.
🎤
The latter also reflects the negative impact of our largely entertainment-based culture. The "alternative" schtick is more Hollywood than history - purposely so. Those specious narratives were intentionally created to dovetail into ones found in the entertainment genre so as to take advantage of all that "free publicity" in order to monetize them.
It also shows the pitfalls of supposed "self-research" online in what are subjects representing esoterica. Dunning-Kruger is the new normal among _devotees_ of such twaddle.
Points to consider, from an engineering perspective (Not the leap of stuff, but the physical eveidence) : Advanced tooling marks, Rockwell Hardness scale discrepancies, sosphicated lathe work, high level percsion angles, cuts on difficult workable materials, beveling that is flawless... Yes, Hancock is a bit of a nutter', but with regards to the tooling marks, and techniques, there are some concerning questions which academics gloss over or poorly explain...
@@Prada_GT Can you give specific examples? So far, researchers managed to drill and carve granite using bronze age tools and even made stone vessels.
@@Prada_GT Denys Stocks has published his results (Experiments in Egyptian Archaeolgy, page 115). He obtained a cutting ratio in granite of 12 cubic cm/h (using a bronze or copper saw and sand), which is reasonable. Using this ratio, any 2 sides of the sarcophagus of Khufu can be cut in less then 4 month.
I'm not denying lathes being used. The guys from "scientists against myths" channel made a stone vessel and used a slow turning lathe for the exterior
The marks from the granite cores are not the result of high speed drilling because 1) the lines intersect each other, there is no continuous spiral and 2) the core tapers, which means that the marks have been made by the side of the drill, not by the cutting edge. Similar marks have been obtained experimentally, using bronze age technology.
The Serapeum sarcophagi are not as precise as people claim. The internal angles range between 90+ and 92+ degrees, as recorded by the ISIDA Project Team. isida-project.org/egypt_march_2013/serapeum.htm
The stone of the pregnant woman was never separated from the bedrock. Carving up a big block of stone is nothing special, the difficult part comes with it's movement.
Which saw mark are you referring to? I am not aware of any saw mark that cannot be explained by manual sawing, including the ones from the sarcophagus of Hordjedef from the Cairo Museum.
Precision never left, if you look at the later works of the Greeks, Romans and the Baroque period. The sculpture becomes much more complex after the Egypians (the roman sarcophagi of Constantina and Hellena - similar to the Serapeum ones, Laocon and his Sons, the works of Bernini etc).
Similar building methods can be discovered independently by different civilizations at different times, just how they discovered agriculture or writing, all on their own.
Still
Check out unchartedx if you haven't already.
@@simplyhuman3982 Uncharted x is a fraud. His videos are terrible, but he makes quite the money from Patreon and his overly priced tours. I debunked a few of his videos, in the comments of his videos, but he was kind enough to insult and block me. I would love to debate him, but he is afraid.
There are underwater cities tho
Cthulhu fhtagn!
It stand to reason that if metropolises can exist under air, then they must exist under water, under the crust of the earth, underneath the mantle, underneath the outer core
Cities just pop up fully formed everywhere regardless of intelligent intervention as part of the convenience principle which allows easy habitation for the propagation of cosmic life
Yes there are
true because most ancient civilizations are deep under the oceans now and are completely lost to us.
@@letyvasquez2025 That’s not what he’s implying...
I agree with most of your points but it's still Ironic...I would never have searched for the Younger Dryus or found your Channel had it not been for Hancock's JRE episodes.
Younger dryus isnt ab important part of history really, all these ancient aliens guys make it sound way worse then it was lol
@@ugadugaga4972 The Ancient Alien Guys aren't the Younger Dryus guys....you thought your comment was way smarter than it was...
@@DG-iw3yw Muricans, can speak only one language and can't even speak that right. Go pick a dictionary chum
@@DG-iw3yw "And yet "smarter" isn't a real word"
'facepalm'
Smart
/smɑːt/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
comparative adjective: *smarter*
Source: Oxford Languages.
And it's people like you that call Graham Hancock a fool. Very bad attempt there champ.
Couldn't agree with you more. Including with your closing statement.
I'd never heard of Graham Hancock, but this video strongly suggests a familial connection to Matt Hancock.
That made me chortle
in what way?
This America "theory" is one extrapolation too far from nothing.
But the first Hancock video I saw him diving on west coast of India to find a underwater city 75 m under water. This not so impossible at all, considering how much the sea level has risen during last 10,000 years. There are other interesting places like Gulf of Persia and the Black Sea.
I am from Finland and I know the phases of the Baltic sea, there were four. Baltic Ice Lake, Yoldia Sea, Anchylus Lake and finally the Baltic Sea. This because of world ocean level rise and land rising.
In the Black Sea there was first melting water flowing in the fresh water lake so that the lake that flowed to Mediterranean Sea. That flow ended in time , and when the lake was much under the world ocean something happened (earthquake) and the world ocean flowed in. Since that event under 100 m Black Sea us practically dead, SO2. In the deep of the Baltic Sea > 100 m it is the same.
The depth of Persian Gulf is about 50 m, so before the big sea level rise it was above sea level.
Not defending Hancock, but there is lot to find, lot to research when the sea level rise is accepted. The Persian Gulf, Black Sea and the west coast of India would be interesting areas.
I am not an archaeologist, but perhaps a wannabe.
Anyway thanks for your interesting and informative videos.
Kippis.
That would have been 'Underworld', which is probably the closest Hancock has come to an academically rigorous study (which still isn't very close but ...). Interestingly he has said in interviews that it's the hardest he's worked on a project and the one he found the least enjoyable, which I think says a lot about his standards. I've got the book and it's a great read as well as being lavishly illustrated. He does still go way off beam when he starts waffling about latitude and/or longitude but his speculation about the potential for an ancient civilisation that got washed away is interesting. If you can lay your hands on a hardback copy of 'Underworld' cheaply or borrow it from your local library it is worth a read.
Yes there are cities lost to sea level around the world. However they are only developed to the extent to the time they were covered. None are more advanced than any other nearby surviving city.
@@wallyslow I've just checked Hancock's 'Underworld' book. He says that he took special courses and describes the equipment he used. However he also says the structures of the Indian coast were at a depth of 23 metres which is roughly 75 feet so my guess is that the OP is a misremembering of the units of measurement.
@@surfk9836 This is spot on SurfK9, the submerged cities off the Indian coast look to be no more advanced than the Indus Civilization in Pakistan, if not part of that continuum.
@@mithras666 Clearly you didn't read my post properly.
To be fair Graeme highlights the poverty of archeological evidence. I would like to know more about why the Neander left Africa. I wonder about push pull dynamics, malaria in particular. Also the alternate concentration dispersal dynamic. I find it difficult to believe that gobekle was the first focus...
Obviously, Neanderthal left Africa due to the fact they were constantly delinquent on the rent. Their welcome wore out in short order.
Love the spoon mike Stephan! Oh, and I enjoy your vids immensely!
“Bollocks I say, bollocks” well I subscribed lmao
To be honest, Hancock got me interested in archeology. I saw him with Randal Carson on Joe Rogan and I was hooked. It was the craziest 'prehistory' story I'd ever heard and it was never told to me! I was kinda pissed at first because I've had pretty good education and this stuff was never mentioned. I bought his book Magicians of the Gods and I really liked it. The book has some really nice pictures about megalithic places and it was interesting to read about precession. The book peeked my interest in archeology and I started to watch and read more about the subject. Started to find out that it probably wasn't true and then started thinking it probably wasn't right.
Watching this channel has given good insight about what is know about certain sights and what conclusions you can make upon that evidence. It usually results in no concrete conclusions. When I clicked this video I caught myself thinking has Stefan thought about this and this. And you did. Thank you for releasing my of any doubt about the truth of Hancock's claims.
Handcock is out there I agree, but never stop questioning.
You can't learn anything if you know it all.
@@sparky6086 Actual ancient prehistory is interesting by itself. There's no need to prep it up with ludicrous ideas with zero basis.
I either owned or borrowed most of his early books and I still think 'Underworld' is very good because it doesn't go very far outside known archaeology. I kind of lost track of him when he started writing fiction but when I discovered he was writing what became 'Magicians of the Gods' I was genuinely excited. I was hugely disappointed when I read the book because rather than returning to the style of 'Underworld', - carefully referencing material, poking the mainstream rather than lambasting its alleged conservatism - he was back to expounding wild ideas and wilfully misrepresenting the hard work of scientists and historians who were actually going out to dig the sites and find the artifacts that Hancock then 'interpreted'. He is very good at presenting his ideas though. He's obviously an intelligent man who is very aware of what he is doing and knows how to draw people in to a semi-fictional world where there are just enough verifiable facts to make it seem plausible. I was drawn in by his early books, including his collaborations with Robert Bauval, and it wasn't until I began reading more deeply that I realised that most of Hancock's ideas had little or no substance to them. If you can find the videos of his 'Underworld' TV series they are well worth watching as he explores some fascinating locations and they are all beautifully filmed. The accompanying book has some great photography in it, especially if you can lay your hands on the hardback edition. As a travelogue it's brilliant.
Whether it's prehistory or any other subject - politics, history history, physics, cosmology, religion, heresy, racial determinism, whether professional wrestling is real - everyone runs into new and weird ideas. Sometimes they're true. Everyone has to either grapple occasionally with strange ideas or else shut their minds to everything. There's no shame in going down a rabbit hole. It is only a shame to get stuck down there if it turns out there are no rabbits.
Much like how Jordan Peterson leads people to ugly philosophy, I'm not sure if Hancock popularizing bunk science is going to do much good ultimately. If your interest is sparked and you end up understanding how little proof there actually is behind the claims, good on you. You were presented with a fun, improvable story and found a way to logic yourself out of it.
However, I'm not sure if that's the majority of his fans. If you get stuck in the "Ancient Aliens" world of faux science and conspiracy theory, I'd rather you never discovered Hancock in the first place. Better to leave history to the things you half-remembered from school. At least it might be closer to reality.
When an "archeologist" or any other scientist/researcher spends more time on podcasts and other shows being angry about people not believing him/her rather than doing his research, you can already conclude that he's there only for the buzz. We have a very funny specimen of them here in France called Jacques Grimault. Spoiler: It always leads to Aliens in the end...
Hancock has no trianing whatsoever, he just connects dots that are actually a Rorschach print
Love the video. A question about the traces of the supposed Hancockian/Atlantean civilization... what kinds of technological things that we currently make would survive 12,000 years or so? Not asking as a "gotcha," but more as a writing prompt for a sci-fi story. Would plastic survive that long? Or would iron? Or is the idea that *some* iron in *some conditions* would survive that long -- long enough for it to be found by future archs?
Loads would survive dude, just look up what we do find from 10000 years ago. That’s what mainstream theories are based upon. Hancock can’t be any food epic he can never find any evidence.
@@russelledwards001 When I've looked up what survives from 10,000 years ago, most of it is stone. I'm wondering if something like iron would hold up for that long.
A lot. Metal doesn't decompose and plastics take an eternity to. A simple plastic bottle takes over 400 years to decompose. In 12,000 years I imagine the world from WALL-E.
plastic would, as nano-plastics. You'd need some kind of machine that could hoover them up and melt them all together again lol. I sure wish they had that machine because I would like to not be ingesting microplastics! Looking forward to reading your story. Sci-Fi is often based on truths that come true after the "what if's" and the debunkers.
I've excavated rusted iron at medieval sites literally hundreds of times. Even when completely oxidized to dust, you can still see it in the soil and know it was a nail by its shape (medieval folks in northern Europe made a shocking amount of nails). We don't actually need a metal tool or other artifact to survive in order to see it and date it based on other objects in the layer.
It’s funny how Brits say tom-ah-toe but also say po-tay-toe.
you mean, English?
@@mrplease66
In america they would probably say "Tom-ay-toe" instead of "Tom-ah-toe"
@@mrplease66 No, British. Pippin said tom-ah-toes and he was Scottish.
Based
I love Dogerland, recent past in relative terms, now its all wet.
Ah the good old days. It was a well kept secret back then.
Floreansis used tools and inhabited mainland areas also along with pygmy mammoths over million years ago... Come on man, open your mind
That theory is completely underwater.
I love dogging land. Especially on a Saturday evening
It's kind of crazy to think how different the geography was during the last ice age and that humans were around to see it. Japan and Britain were a peninsula, Indonesia was part of Southeast Asia, and Eurasia and North America were connected.
An advanced civilization, in a stage of developement somewhere between the Roman Empire and the British Empire of the 18th century, is totally impossible without agriculture and without pottery. Bones and pottery are two things that conserve extremely well when buried in soil.
A nation of seafares who cross oceans on a regular basis will earlier or later start to introduce foreign species to other continents.
But there is not even one single bone of a probably domestically bred animal old enough (despite the dog that perfectly fits into a stone age lifestyle). There is no pottery old enough. And there is not even one single introduced species anywhere, no useful vegegable, no mouse, no flea.
We probably underestimate the capabilities of stone age humans. But it still was the stone age, not a high tech age. We probably underestimate stone age capabilities because we only find bone and stone relics, while organic matter is almost completely gone. It can not be proven when the first strong rope was made, when the first nice clothes were made, when the first weatherproof tent was made, when the first wooden house was made, when the first useful boat was made and so on. We can not prove it because organic matter decomposes. Most of human history happened in rather warm climate zones. That is bad for conservation of organic matter. Organic artefacts are so rare that it is not a very fair assumption that the oldest object of its kind that we have also is the first that had ever exited. The invention can be tens of thousands of years older than the oldest one that is preserved. And it still is the stone age, they still were hunter gatherers and they still were unable to cross oceans.
I believe Hancock has stated that we he means as 'advanced' isn't what we think of as advanced, or basically, that the pre-civ wasn't advanced in the way we think it was because of what we know. You could very well have massive knowledge with out loads of infrastructure basically.
Indeed? Normally, I would agree with you. That's common sense, isn't it? If only it weren't for that stupid island in the Mediterranean. On this island, which geologists insist hard had no connection with the mainland for many millions of years, hand axes were found that were relatively easy to date. They are a little younger than 1 million years old. How on earth did these hand axes come about many miles from the nearest shore. And there weren't just a few. There were thousands of hand axes there. How was that in the middle part with the ability to build ships and seafaring...?
@@melchiorvonsternberg844 I guess you are talking about Cyprus. I think the key to explain the very early (pre-)Human occupation is, we still underestimate what can be done under stone age conditions. Even more we underestimate what our older relatives were capable of. Homo erectus went all the way to China, long before the first modern Human even had emerged in Africa. I don't think they would have made it without some good ideas that helped with survival. Their tools weren't much inferiour to the very first tool generations of Neanderthals or modern Humans. They were much more humanlike than apelike.
Earth changed a lot over time. Climate was not always the same. Today the wind conditions are harsh in the Mediterranian Sea. Extremely dangerous to small boats. But it is highly likely that there were times when the conditions were more calm, better suited for seafaring with basic equipment. Even today tens of thousands of refugees from Africa cross the Mediterranian Sea every year. As long as their rubber boats don't leak and their engines don't seize, they make it. Throughout antiquity there were huge merchant fleets in the Mediterranian Sea. They suffered heavy losses to storms, but still enough of them made it to make the whole trade system highly profitable. It is possible to cross that sea with very basic technology, you just have to be a bit lucky. The Mediterranian Sea is much smaller than the Atlantic Ocean, it takes days instead of weeks to cross it.
Additionally we should not forget that Humans reached Australia by boat up to 70000 years ago and most probably they sailed down what now is the US west coast more than 25000 years ago. The Polynesians basically were a stone age society when they learnd to navigate the Pacific Ocean 2000 years ago and nobody knows how many of them found their wet grave while trying to find an island.
What about just being lucky instead of implementing a plan?
Sometimes we need to stretch imagination a bit. Did you know that the ancestors of what now is the apes of the Americas originate in Africa? They are proven to have been in South America for at least 34 million years. Back then, the Atlantic Ocean was something like 2/3 of its current size. Scientists suggest they crossed the ocean by rafting on plant matts that were detached from the shore during storms. Same is true for South American Rodents (Capybara...). Their ancestors originate from Africa too but they have been in South America for at least 41 million years and the only explanation is rafting on plant matts.
So, what if the first occupiers of Cyprus came there by accident too? What if they were sailing along the shore when a storm drove them across the sea? The distance from the what now is Turkey to Cyrpus is by orders of magnitude smaller than the Atlantic Ocean.
@@polepino You mean they had all that knowledge but never used it to make their own life easier? Having advanced infrastructure, pottery, domestic vegetables and livestock and all the things a civilization has, help with survival.
@@Itsjustme-Justme I forget which interview he was talking about this nuance but basically he was talking about the idea of how we should consider being more open of what advancements were to them as opposed to viewing what advancements mean to us from our perspective(agriculture, structures, tools, etc). For example We think cranes, bulldozers, etc to build and the ancient Egyptians were thinking big limestone blocks, wood, etc to build the pyramids, our perspectives are different on what we thought we needed to build, there's a difference in knowledge sets. Hancock was just thinking that maybe there's a lost set of knowledge that they were using that has been forgotten, not that it would rival today's machines etc but maybe I was effective for thier purposes and what they had, basically it wouldn't look like we think it would. Lost knowledge could be something like some of the Inca stuff in Perú, we don't know how they did some things there. We have no reference.
Point taken on the ship building, don't have any evidence of ancient ships pre history yet.
Great to see a critique from before the Netflix Show
4:53 polynesians didn't use metal to cross vast amounts of ocean.
true
but there is evidence of their travel
and yet they still leave an archaeological record. Food, construction, genetics, fire, turds.
Neither did the Vikings. Metal nails are rather new. Pegs were the fasteners until recently. Up until the 60's dovetails were the norm for good furniture. Well after a century of screws being common and cheap. The construction industry is still using metal pipe for systems that can be done cheaper with plastics. And I don't mean pvc.
Polynesians were not claimed to have reached technological levels comparable to the pre-industrial British Empire. And yet, even they left a bulk of archaeological evidence. Also, it took the Polynesians thousands of years to colonize parts of the Pacific. There wasn't a regular ocean wide exchange of ideas and technology between let's say Hawaii and Fiji.
@@paulmcclung9383 the vikings used metal though, maybe not for nails in the constuction of boats, but metal in weapons and jewelry. They have left evidence of their presence all over europe.
I love your channel, thank you for everything you do. You mentioned a link between Australian Aborigine and American DNA, and I'm interested in researching this but can't find the source in your comments?
There’s a book written by Steve Webb of Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia called “Made in Africa”. Going over human evolution in the travels for the last 7 million years.
@@M.N.Baxter thanks Meg, I’m in Australia and should be able to get my hands on it
Is the teapot itself made of chocolate or does it pour out liquid chocolate? In the case of the former would it then in addition pour more out, thus making it a double chocolate teapot?
It only makes sense to find things older and deeper when the newer artifacts are most susceptible to damage. You find Clovis but nothing in between ?
You completely ignored the most important piece of evidence explaining Hancock's theories -- the size of his bank account.
Im not into the spiritual aspects of Hancocks ideas, but I do believe that there is more civilizations we haven't discovered. I want believe that Atlantis is real and find it one day, but I do not think they were anything like Hancock makes them out to be.
Yeah I think he has a point on the tantalizing evidence of Pleistocene civilization but then makes himself look absurd by going down this hippie-spiritual path. He needs to stick with the anomalously early mathematics and astronomical knowledge and the weird underwater ruins and then say: "Look, we know something was there. We know something happened. Let's not speculate, let's discover."
"Atlantis" has been discovered. Crete was home to the ancient and extremely advanced bronze age minoan civilization, a volcano erupted and caused a huge Tsunami which destroyed large parts of the Civ. HENCE: "Posiedon was mad" This may have contributed to the later decline, and the ancient civ was mostly forgotten until the 19th century? when it was rediscoved. Dates and legends largely corroborate this hypothesis.
Concerning Atlantis, if you consider everything Plato said, it can only be in one place : the Azores islands. Randall Carlson makes a very strong argument of that, backed up with a ton of evidence that he discusses over a 5 parts long podcast on his CZcams channel, you should go check it out ! I have been looking for the city myself and read about many hypothesis for years and I think that this one is definitely the final pick !
@@thecheaperthebetter4477 Ancient guys Plato and Solon have debunked that claim. They never said it was Crete. The descriptions of Atlantis, whether or not it existed, is NOT Crete. I don't know where the Crete claim comes from, but there are 0 historical sources which say its Crete. If we get clues from Plato, Atlantis should be somewhere in the Atlantic, or west Afrca. We could also get clues from copies of ancient maps. In those maps, you sometimes see "Atlantis" and its NOT Crete.
@@IrritatorXleXretour I agree, if Atlantis existed it has to be in the Azores, it fits very well with Plato's description
I had to watch this audio only. That spoon kept making me bust up laughing.
What Stefan doesn’t understand is that these people were from another dimension and only appeared in our reality when they wanted to. /s
Source: trust me bro
That’s pretty cool that you could get Stephen Hawking to narrate the “objections” parts. Nicely done
I’d say he would fundamentally object to that
I enjoyed hearing him say “fancy a shag”
You can’t spell Hancock without hack.
Glad I saw this. I need more Occam's Razor in my brain-grooming regime.
Loving the spoon mic. Thanks for the video
Stefan, you have some VERY strong arguments against GH's theories (food, wipe out through cataclysm, availability of crops) but I also find some misconceptions of Graham Hanocks work in your statement. And I disagree in general with some of your remarks:
1. GH does not state that "his" lost civilization used spiritual powers alone. He means, pretty questionable at all, that the lost civilization might have used psychic powers to support levitation etc but not exclusively to use that powers to exist and not use any other material support.
2. Lot of material would have survived, evidence for a lost civilization is "nowhere": Not necessarily. Gobekli Tepe is imho the perfect support for a lost high tech civilization that we for a long time didn't know anything about, because no evidence has been found. Now we have it. Not to have any evidence does not mean it does not exist. Millions of artifacts? How many artifacts did we have before Gobekli Tepe has been found. Literally nothing of it has been found in the earliest days of archaeology or (and this might be crucial) has been mapped correctly to that time period - nothing. They thought it to be roman at first step.
3. You need an open mind to accept, that lots of stuff has not been found yet. Gobekli Tepe is the perfect for centuries and just recently to be accepted "Colosseum" right in your face. Get what I mean?
4. Genetic traces - that's a very interesting point: What about the black sea DNA traces in Peru? And, yes indeed, what about the isolated traces of some of the indigene Brazilian people - I think fact is: there ARE traces already evidenced and existing that really don't make sense treating them isolated. There WAS DNA exchange happening. I think both the above can be considered as obvious signals. And in general I'm not so sure about the DNA tracing. In Europe the DNA tracing is kind of vanishing and is getting very unclear to populations even four to five thousand years ago. To state, as you do here, that everything is clear and nothing has been found to evidence DNA mixing that could have happened 10-12k years is pretty risky. We do not even have sufficient DNA and bone evidence to fully support where the central European habitation really originated from some 7.000 years ago. All I think is it makes sense to really keep an open mind. Gobekli calling, Gobekli culture also was not "everywhere", u get the idea….
Think about how little we know - you are absolutely correct with that statement. Don't take it all for granted already at your young age, stay curious and inspired, there will be lots and lots of discoveries laying ahead of us. If Klaus Schmidt would not have been an open mind (and wanted to get famous….) - we still would believe Gobekli Tepe to be an roman graveyard.
@Chris Pacheco Don't perpetuate the stereotype that skeptics resort to ad hominem.
Chris Pacheco you are so arrogantly ignorant, my goodness.
Chris Pacheco, haha, while you might was thinking you are “debunking” anything, you just laid out for all how ignorant your stance is with your unprofessional answers
@Chris Pacheco Wow, Chris, I must admit, that arrogant agressiveness of yours perfectly seems to reflect your character. You did not seem to get a single point of what I've said.
Don't call me silly.
lol I think the OP is GH
I think your objections are fair and make sense. I love listening to Hancock because he's a fun and passionate guy, but the simple fact that he always finds himself on the fringes with virtually every historical topic should tell you a lot. Oh, the plastic spoon was a nice touch. Cheers.
@@JohnSmith-xf6nb, I probably should have just said that. Cheers
Hancock is also EXTREMELY antisemetic and promotes Islamophobia. He is NOT a good man.
Maniac
And that he was originally a science fiction writer, before he started to reframe his working as conveying some hidden truth that’s being suppressed by a conspiracy of evil academics.
@My names Jeff, if there was actual incontrovertible evidence, science would have accepted it. 99.99% of the time that is the case. I would know, I'm an evolutionary biologist. Cheers.
There are so many civilizations that have come and gone and left barely a trace. Golbeki Tepi changes the conversation about what we know and what is possible.
Nice shed. Great video.
All the best from Portland, OR.
When you talked about isolated crop development I was all in
It’s like debunking Harry Potter.
Hilarious comment
Muggle
the problem is he didn't debunk anything
@@fightfannerd2078 yes he did. You weren't listening.
@@fightfannerd2078 You just can't accept the truth
Have you seen the new series from Handcock? Anchient apocalypse?
Any thoughts on that?
it's rubbish
I believe a lot of Graham Hancocks points are well founded. But as the Master Debunker Michael Shermer says, "the bigger the 'conspiracy', the less likely it's true, but there likely are smaller truths within"
so advanced they could make a globe spanning fleet of boats and leave no trace. so advanced they could build all those megalithic sites without leaving a single tool behind. so advanced they had mapped the slow movement of the stars across millennia.
also apparently too advanced to be bothered passing on the secret of soap.
@@AulisVaara I don't disagree at all. My comment was meant to imply something as everyday useful as basic sanitation could have had a titanic impact on day to day quality of life. Soap is fairly easy to make, a pyramid or an ocean crossing boat not as much.
@Old Baron Archaeology should spend more time trying to find out if the ideas are true than trying to disprove them. The archaeological record cannot be assumed to represent anywhere near the whole story, and what we do have already poses many questions that the commonly agreed upon narrative cannot explain. That's why Hancock and colleagues work is important, and why the onslaught of vitriol they receive is only detrimental to humanity itself
"Think about how little we know about the Denisovans" that's exactly why he talks about them
The who?
@@sadhu7191 No, not the British rock band, he means the ancient Hominid.
Yet, he keeps repeating that those are his ideas and theories. Not proven.
@@trallius1173 Exactly, ideas and theories, not proven
@@trallius1173 maybe instead of just laughing at Hancock, these big Bois archeologists can spend more time finding out about them.
OK, maybe bourbon biscuits didn't come from Atlantis, but what about custard creams?
And before anyone says there is no evidence of custard creams before the ice age, don't you know absence of evidence is evidence the great flood?!!!!!!
For objection number two, where's the food? Clearly they all ate soul food.
That Elon guy suggests a good goal for success is to know that you are always wrong to some degree and to try and become less wrong.
If I did choose to believe this, then the idea of questioning the most foundational concepts in a given field (archeology included) would seem the best way to become more accurate. Questioning my most foundational assumptions would seem a good place to start as the consideration of alternative concepts could potentially avail me to new information or a new way of understanding information, whereas if I were to have an
unwillingness to suspend my stance on my longstanding concept my progress would be limited to obtaining it from others or when large and obvious examples are revealed to disprove old ideas.
To know you don’t know, what a gift.
Hancock is obviously far more educated on this subject than you my freind.
How do you know you don't know? If you don't know you might be wrong and have known all along?
It's one thing to question. It's another to propose different answers that contradict all the evidence. That's the sort of "questioning" and "open-minded thinking" flat earthers engage in.
That's not what knowing what you don't know is, lol. "Knowing what you don't know" refers to understanding that there is a specific idea or problems that you can identify but are currently unable to conquer it. Its a matter of needing more knowledge not less.
Seeing, listening, and having positive debates on all views is what helps to open the doors for better understanding of all sciences, math, and history. Even if someone disagrees with you or GH, it's awesome to see multiple view points on these subjects. Thank you for taking the time to give a healthy discussion and debate.
Yeah you say that but guess what, Hancock isn’t out for debate of his ideas, he cries like a bitch and says “not my words, I just quoted this bullshit book pwease stop yelling at meeeee” when challenged by professionals. He’s never even submitted his “work” for peer review, which would be the ultimate invitation for debate as every scientific discovery in history met heavy opposition when first declared. He a clown and a con artist, not a contributor
Lol I hate the whole Positive Debate thing. It must be strange to live a life where everything is positive and your opinions don't have to be backed up by anything. Its a Postmodern Curse where everything is an opinion and noone is wrong.
Debate?? More like sophistry. The best critic of Plato was not Isocrates but Plato’s disciple, Aristotle.
@@JRobbySh You're completely right.
seeing "multiple points of view" is only relevant when the points involved actually come with some form of hard evidence to back them up. people pull whatever notion out of their rear-ends and instantly expect/demand that it be regarded with the same degree of relevance as ideas that are based on verifiable data. so, yes... we should consider differing views, but we should also be able to accept when some of these views are determined to be unsubstantiated and to move on from them.
I'm by no means an archeologist, and personally I don't agree with everything Graham Hancock says, but I do believe Randall Carlson substantiates some of his claims.
I have a chocolate teapot in my fridge. Technically that means there actually is a chocolate teapot circling the sun.
As they say... extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Well, there is.
@@firefox7801 where?
@@nakenmil The fact that it took this long for mainstream archaeology, geography, history - to admit that there is evidence for a cataclysmic event, a single cataclysmic event - despite all the evidence in their faces - is evidence. Evidence is all around you. The "Out of Africa" theory? It's STILL just a theory. Yet - that's what National Geographic prints, it's what the Huffington Post prints, it's what the Wallstreet Journal prints. Anything not sanctioned by the academia watchdogs in publishing will be censored.
@@aperfectdayradioforfamilie7492 Not wanting to be picky, but there seem to have been periodic catastrophe events.
@@aperfectdayradioforfamilie7492 DNA pretty much disproves Out of Africa.
Can you imagine if every scientist providing skepticism for their idea considered it a personal attack?
Depends. Attacking ideas is fine but attacking the individual proposing those ideas is not.
Unnecessary
They are all incessantly preemptive
Visit any conference or symposium to verify
Graham masterfully mimics their rhetorical bickering so as to blend in to their preferred style of pugilisticly pugnacious powwows
@@letyvasquez2025 Huh?!?!? Did not understand what you just said. Your not mimicking academics here by any chance, are you?
By being incoherent, yes.
But only if asked.
~Scientists do consider any critique a personal attack. To verify this, you should visit a scientific conference and watch them berate one another.
If you require elementary graphics to further understand the above, please return to school.
@@letyvasquez2025 Even if academics regularly personally attack the purveyors of ideas and not the idea itself it goes not make it right to do so. And I do not need to return to school to appreciate that.
Great video. Would you be down for an interview at your convenience? Teaching my daughter about your work?
I agree with almost everything you are saying except the assumption that if there was a stone age city that is now flooded we would have found it. Aten was only discovered a couple years ago despite it being located in Luxor and people hunting for it for over a century. It is not hard to imagine a flooded paleolithic urbanization site that remains undiscovered.
Other than that, great video.
Sure but look who is saying it. It’s not based on any good reason. czcams.com/video/XcYI-uTAa3E/video.html
Yes but if it really was something on the scale of the late pre-industrial British empire I think we would have found something by now.
@@henrimourant9855 We're only now trying our best to produce things with natural ingredients. By this I mean we're going organic and what does that mean, basically they are meant to blend into the nature once we're done with them. After the invention of plastic and it's use everywhere, we've now discovered that they are fundamentally bad for our environments. Maybe be the ancients were advanced enough to know this very fact, so they mostly created things with stones, not metal as they tend to rust or corrode.
What I am saying is, maybe part of the reason why we also can't find objects that ancient humans might have used is that they might have been incorporated back into the nature, after the great flood. Because the ancients only used organic materials which is how it should be.
Entire cities within a finite area like the Mediterranean though? That was his criteria. Cities that are now underwater leave a lot of stuff behind. Like, what's that place near Egypt that's under water now where they found all that stuff? Alexandria I think. They found that and it wasn't a huge advanced civilization with psychic/spiritual based technology. Whatever that would even be.
@@at3963 Your theory is interesting and likely has some truth but it doesn't really matter unless we actually can find some evidence for that being true. I feel like that's the thing that people miss, we need evidence... actual hard evidence... and a lack of evidence is not evidence.
Although it's a year late, just wanted to say thank you for makin this. I used to be a mild Hancock-believer due to his appearances on Joe Rogan's platform, that is until an archaeology professor of mine directly addressed his ideas in class. Now, thanks to you, I have a far more robust understanding of why exactly Hancock's ideas are wrong rather than just a surface level understanding, thanks again!
That's the problem with Rogan, in my opinion. The guy has no critical thinking skills, or at least doesn't apply them when he thinks something sounds cool, and feels zero responsibility to his listeners regardless of topic or guest. The caveat emptor energy with him is strong, to put it mildly.
Ironically, it was Hancock's appearance on Rogan that made me - who only knew Rogan from his MMA commentating - avoid the man's podcast and any work unrelated to combat sports like the plague.
why do you and all these other hancock haters want to talk about "his ideas"? these are not his ideas, these are theories promoted by some of the most prominent geologists, archeologists, and scientists in the world. all hancock does is write and talk about these ideas. he does believe that a lot of these theories could very well be true and so do many others. the entrenched status quo does not want to accept many of the new facts being discovered. they are like the 98% of college professors in the 60s and 70s that ridiculed the theory that a meteor wiped out the dinosaurs until the crater was discovered then that smug self righteous expression got wiped off their faces. the same with troy, (the remains of the trojan horse was recently discovered in the city that was a myth), and it was the same with the steady state theory of the universe, and the scablands in the north western u.s., and the clovis first mob that belittled and made fun of anyone who said that there were people in the americas prior to 13000 years ago. now they are the ones looking like flat earthers. hancock has always been a reporter and a writer. if you all want to challenge these theories, challenge the ones that came up with them. but you won't do that, you'd get your lunch ate.
@@markanthonyclark9981 I take it you did not watch the video?
@@markanthonyclark9981 "promoted by some of the most prominent geologists, archeologists, and scientists in the world." LMFAO🤣
@@markanthonyclark9981 I could make up an undebunkable history fact on the spot, if you wanted me to, just say the word and I'm at you command, sir. 👌
Let's be real, if psychic gurus spread their knowledge of advanced civilization to the Earth then we would have seen evidence for a death metal phase back when they were still in high school.
I think we’re looking for goth phase followed by hippie phase.
What are you talking about ?
You’re right. The evidence just isn’t there. We have yet to unearth a pre-younger dryas Hot Topic
We have alot of towns here where i live that have no trace left, these towns existed less that 100 years ago. kinda weird they left no trace. but its very true they were there and now they are completely gone.
How do you know they even existed, then..? There must still be a record of them having done so, even if they no longer physically exist - otherwise you wouldn’t know that “they are completely gone” leaving “no trace” behind.
Oh really? No trace at all? Has the archeaology actually been done? Has someone done geophysics and dug appropriate trenches?
@@MikeAG333 have you watched the timelapse videos of the lava filling 300ft canyons in iceland? Or possibly the slow motion eruption of Mount Saint Helens? Gone without a trace.. dig you your trench my friend.
@@rmitts1 Right, so you can't answer the question. Clearly this is your interpretation of "gone without a trace", rather than that of an archaeologist. Your claim is spurious and baseless.
@@MikeAG333 the author of the video's main point was where is the stuff? my baseless claim is that in the case of a major catastrophe there is nothing left, in the case of mount St Helens(where i live) close to 1300 feet deep of earth was pulverized into tiny particles of ash. there will be nothing to find of the so called stuff. also we have rivers that washed away not only the structures that were above ground but the earth the structures stood on down to bedrock. no i am not archaeologist. im just trying to have an open mind when presented with a theory.
Found your channel via Miniminuteman, he shouts you out during his recent Ancient Apocalypse video.
Check out Potholer54's takedown of the first episode of Ancient Apocalypse.
The Spoon-Mic Show -- starring Spoon-Mic with special guest star What's His Name!
Spoony McMicrophone.Cant listen much longer
Stefan, where can I buy my plastic spoon microphone!?
is the mic taped to a plastic spoon? If so, I love it.
What does make some sense is that culture spread from India. There seems to be evidence of a lot of Sanskrit derived names in Europe and Middle East. Nile means blue in Sanskrit. Thames is tamas in Sanskrit meaning dirty muddy.