The Mars Mystery: Graham Hancock's Grifting Exposed
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 08. 2024
- In this video, I look at one of the more embarrassing entries in Hancock's embarrassing corpus and demonstrate both that Hancock's theories are backed by zero evidence and that he is a grifter rather than a nutter.
Patreon link: / thersites
PayPal link: paypal.me/thersites
Discord: / discord
Brave Browser: brave.com/noa557
Twitter link: / thersitesathens
Minds.com link: www.minds.com/...
Steemit/dtube link: steemit.com/@t...
BitChute: www.bitchute.c...
Backup Channel: / @spiritofthersites7578
I used to watch Hancock on JRE. At the beginning, I liked him. But over time, I sensed something was wrong with him. I started questioning some of his "facts" and quickly realised most of it was a lie, just covered with a bit of truth to make it seem real. I can see now that he's a good story teller and knows how to act to make you like him, but in the end he's a bullshitter.
Pretty good rule of thumb: if they constantly refer to the standard body of methods and findings in an academic discipline as "mainstream [that discipline]," they are hucksters or huckster stans. There may be exceptions, but after 40 years in and around higher ed, I've yet to encounter one. For example, working archaeologists don't refer to "mainstream archaeology" as if that's one kind among some other kinds. You're doing archaeology, or not. If you do it badly, or your findings aren't widely accepted or current, you're still doing archaeology, not some off-brand of non-mainstream archaeology. If it's made to sound like archaeology without using archaeology methods or taking account of accepted archaeology findings, it's pseudo-archaeology. Hancock will be the first to say his work isn't archaeology and he has no training in that field. But he still poses "mainstream archaeology" vs his work, implying that it's some kind of "alternative archaeology" which in fact does not exist. No working archaeologist (or other scholar) ever talks about their field in these terms, afaik.
Rogan lost points with me because he constantly defends his BS because they blew each other. On a unrelated point Joe was never ever funny
@@KUarentaKILLA yeah on his latest podcast with hancock and an archeologist i wish Joe called him out more
If you think its his" acting " that made you like him. You've never met him.
The Mars mystery was co written by Robert buval ant its a fine book with many intriguing points. Try reading his books or looking at other proponents of his theories like BAM. Builders of the ancient mysteries... most of his skeptics don't..
@@noisepuppetYou are completely mind controlled by the mainstream you so vehemently defend as the bastion of knowledge
Don't knock Coast to Coast AM, there's nothing quite like Art Bell taking calls and humouring some random weirdo who says he's a time traveller or werewolf or whatever
There is a fine line between what Art did as a broadcaster/entertainer and what Graham Hancock does as a "journalist" but there is a line.
The Mars Mystery: Released the same year as Stargate SG-1, and 3 years after Stargate the movie. Just sayin'.
He has links to military intelligence
The fact that you actually cite the pages for your breakdown earned a subscription
@@Kitties-of-Doom correct. He is actually reading the reference material. It's not incredible, just by comparison with the stupid people that don't quote references at all and just echo exactly what other vloggers ay... Whilst having the audacity to call someone else sheep. It's like the obese dude that calls a chubby chick fat
The amount of comments saying "he admitted to not reading the book," and the "not using any evidence to refute graham," people in the comments are insane. The book Thersites admitted to not reading, is not the book he is reviewing and said in the video that he read cover to cover. Also, there are constant page numbers with the citations thersites is bringing up! It's like no one listened to the video and just responded to their own voices in their heads.
That's par for the course with any video debunking Hancock. People post critical comments in a manner that suggests they are simply responding to the title rather than watching the video. Or they watch just enough to establish that it is not a flattering review before attacking the reviewer. You get people saying that the video doesn't debunk a particular claim only to have the creator point out, for example, that it was addressed in detail 15 minutes into the video. Its like searching for the Holy Grail to find someone actually responding to a particular criticism of Hancock raised in the video. He has got to be laughing his ass off all the way to the bank at these loons.
That's the level of discourse you can expect from a bunch of stoner pseud Rogabros. 🗿
How would they know? Not as if they read the book either. Or any book.
Sounds like your argument is he is either an accomplished sociopath, or he genuinely questions the status quo, when confronted with new information. What’s your position with Randall Carlson then? I’m curious.
Richard C Hoagland believed everyone at NASA should have been charged with murder because they had advanced alien technology but sent astronauts into space in the space shuttle. Which he called a "bathtub with wings"
all based on the 'face on Mars' which has been shown to be an optical illusion caused by the low resolution camera .
The great pyramids of Gizaeh: "stack a bunch of rocks together and carve them to make em look cool". Thank you, that's enough for me 3:36 and I'm out.
The Egyptians had been making pyramids for some time before those ones. Pyramids are basically large piles of dirt - they're a very stable sahpe.
Whilst impressive in some ways they're also very primitive as regards architecture.
Hancock spent seven years diving in dangerous waters to write Underworld. You didn't even bother reading the book you're criticizing, and you are calling him lazy?
Another thing, why did you pick this book to critique, not one of the newer ones? Low hanging fruit.
So, to add credibility to the argument that Hancock is saying nonsensical things, one must spend more time diving...
this guy is stupid, he will never understand Hancocks work, he is a sheap beliving everything they served him at school, never done any psychidelicks, than criticizing people that actually done them, this gyu is a joke!
He's had a couple of decades to get a PhD in archaeology, and hasn't done that.
I can't believe I used to be pro-Hancock. The sheer weight of counter evidence has forced me to shift my opinion. I suspect I'm in a minority sadly, I mostly see cognitive dissonance from fans when presented by excellent content, like this video
Can I ask why you used to be pro-hancock and what changed your mind?
@@branominal i hadn't been exposed to the counter evidence. I always recognised that Hancock was not doing strict archeology but nor do I dismiss the value of noticing patterns and suggested possibilities, nor people willing to go against dogmas, as that process has often led to ACTUAL scientific investigation. But thanks to various youtubers, the sheer weight of counter evidence to his claims is simply too much to sustain an open mind about his claims. I also began to see how he is a hypocrit who literally does all the manipulative things with his ideas that he accuses mainstream science of.
I dont COMPLETELY dismiss all his ideas, some still exist in the "possible" realm, but put simply: Unless he takes his 2 million fortune, and crowdfunds from his millions of true believers, to actually DO the science required to investigate his claims, he clearly is more invested in WHAT IF??? BUY MY BOOK WHILST I DESCRIBE THIS " WHAT IF" ? Rather than intellectual honesty and epistemological rigour. I pretty much consider him a conman until he actually uses his massive reach to make the archeological investigations happen. He won't.
@@davidcauley9400 thanks.
To be honest, Hancock does get a lot of people interested in prehistory who otherwise wouldn't be, but like you say he's earning a lot of money and not actually putting it towards any legitimate research. He even claims in his shows and books that he has indeed found evidence, but he never actually shows us.
I do agree though that pushing against the status quo is important, many things are presented as fact in academia when they are far from certain, and even though scientists these days are far more willing to say that their working theories are just the best guesses than they were in the past, there is always bias and an unwillingness to let go of long-held beliefs that must be considered.
@davidcauley9400
Whshshahhahaha offcourse he earns money. Its his job. You guys dont like his persona,and then hate. Video also, all opinions no facts. I dont care about his persona. Every western man wants to cash, thats just how western people are haha. This video hates because he earns money. What a dumb video.
I appreciate this type of analysis because there are so many writers and media personalities like him on all kinds of shows. Wild speculation and extraordinary claims without evidence. Fine as entertainment but not with a veneer of science.
Thanks for referencing Stephan Milo. His channel is great.
One thing that I find annoying about the CZcams algorithm is that I occasionally get pseudoscience Graham Hancock type bullshit in my recommended videos because I'm interested in archaeology and the stone age. That's why it's important to clean the feed using the 'not interested' button.
Where do I find the not interested button on the CZcams mobile app? I would love to get rid of a lot of the BS that I get recommended to me.
Close minded
See this is how this guy works just stack a bunch of rocks when it's a hundred freaking tons per Stone oh that just that's easy you make your money tearing down ancient history researchers without Graham Hancock you wouldn't be s***
@@terryjackmehoff2351 I make my money teaching English, not tearing down charlatans. I wish I could make a living exposing these frauds.
Lmao he’s not a pseudo scientist. Pull up an article or video where he states this cuz he’s NEVER claimed the title “scientist” or “archaeologist”
My god y’all here one bad thing about someone without first hand knowledge or experience and quick to jump on that band wagon.
Y’all need to do your research before forming opinions
Hancock's critics and detractors most often mischaracterize his position. As he states often, he is NOT an "ancient astronaut" advocate. He is NOT saying the bulk of modern archeological results are wrong.
He IS saying there is enough unknown, enough unexplored, enough evidence to warrant a CONVERSATION about the possibility.
You claim he is often vague and makes unfalsifiable hypothesis when in fact that's exactly why he is so appealing, he doesn't say "This is exactly how it is i'm 100% sure" but "There are unanswered questions or not answered well enough so let's take a closer look from a different perspective". He also often states in interviews that he regards it his job to bring up ALTERNATIVES to the mainstream, instead of staying in line with the mainstream narrative and not dare questioning anything. He doesn't claim that his alternative theories are 100% correct, but it is the starting point for more research and a conversation. What's so "embarrassing" about that?
If mainstream gives good answers with the necessary evidence, great. But often it turns out mainstream has theories that are built on very shaky foundations, but those theories are accepted dogma and therefore not to be questioned. It's right and good that he challenges dogmas. What's wrong about it? Look how violently opposed archaeology was for his suggestion (and John Anthony West & Robert Schoch) that the Sphinx is at least 10,000 years old. Because there was no evidence for a megalithic culture from that time...until of course Gobekli Tepe showed up on the global stage.
Btw:
embarrassing? grifter? nutter?
If that's the low level you are starting with, i have no need to watch the video. Having a professional analysis or whatever you are trying to do requires actually acting professional or at least civilized.
Whatever you think about Graham, he has a right to state his opinion and write books like all of us do. People find it appealing what he has to say, so be it.
At least he keeps his discussions with his detractors civil. That's something you should learn.
I have never seen someone take so long to say "I'm upset".
Ironically, It took you 12 words to say “I’m upset”
@@thucydides7849 took this dude 1 hour and 15 minutes 😂
You can feel his rage in his voice, keeps mentioning Hancock's wealth. 🤣🤣
@@stu2333 got to love snake oil salesmen and the dummies who part with their money 💰
Delusional comment.
Does Hancock still stand by his contention that there was an advanced civilisation on Mars? He wrote a book about that.
He still advertises the book on his website, so he presumably stands by his claims.
youre the grifter here buddy, nice paypal link hahaha
😂😂😂 true
Yeah, because Graham sells his books for free.
Graham won't send you an Xmas card for feebly going to bat for him.
I LOVE how you make such a broad assumption about Joe Rogan's audience. what a baseless claim, I HIGHLY doubt you have any data backing your own claim up.
"I HIGHLY doubt you have any data backing your own claim up."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The irony! Like Hancock uses evidence for his claims?
It does not take a genius...
LOL. He got under your skin didn't he.
Science, unlike Graham Hancock's ridiculous claims, requires peer reviewing and a very close examination of one’s claims by others to see if those claims actually hold up to everyone's scrutiny. Graham and his followers on the other hand, just ignore the scrutiny of others. That's part of his attraction to his followers. They love to see him as a rebel, as an outsider who is discovering new things and defeating the “mainstreamers” who doubt their hero. It feels empowering to feel like you’re in on his secret discoveries and defeating the system. You can see happening in the comment section of any of the CZcams videos he is in.
He is a rebel hero...to lots of inexperienced people who get taken in by his b.s.
Also, because of the internet itself, there is now an entire tribe of other misled people who have found each other online and who can engage each other on social media sites, which makes it almost self perpetuating. Unlike doing something like believing in Santa Claus as an adult, it doesn’t cost them anything socially to keep believing in what makes them happy, regardless of how accurate it actually is.
Most of you guys who fall for Graham Hancock’s stories get so wrapped up in what you heard from him that it's nearly impossible for you to let go of it anymore or maintain any healthy skepticism. You are only interested in the excitement and emotional charge you get out of being told about "lost civilizations" and "impossible mysteries."
To give into the method of science at this point in time, after months or even years of being fans of the “alternative,” you would have to simultaneously admit to yourself that you might have been tricked, which is hard enough to face, let go of something in your life that has been getting you really excited and that stirs your up your runaway imagination, and also you would have to examine the subject in more depth and learn more about it, something that you probably weren’t/aren't really interested in, in the first place.
When Graham Hancock says something like: “Egyptologists can’t explain __________(fill in the blank)…that’s enough for you. You have no interest in fact checking it or investigating his claim.
You guys always remain on the surface level of any of historical subjects that you are told about because you are basically scientifically illiterate. Graham Hancock is more than willing to stir you up...telling you his stories…feeding your emotions and your runaway imaginations…and ca$hing in your inexperience and your willingness to believe whatever he tells you.
It’s actually sad and pathetic to watch.
Joe Rogan's audience are pretty gullible.
Not a big fan of Hancock but I don’t think he leans into the “drugs” and spirituality to obtain a wider audience. To be fair I think it’s the most genuine thing about him.
Buying this book now. Thanks for the heads up.
That '76 probe result is covered succinctly in Sagan's book "Cosmos". The results "indicated" life, did not "prove" life. This is because those same chemical reactions are possible through inorganic soil chemistry.
_appeal to people that think ancient humans could not have possibly _
Only the nutters think that. The real thinkers question whether or not it was done by the people The Establishment say it was. Try not to be butt-hurt by that.
And what does "establishment" says?
@@RR_theproahole Egyptians. Duh.
Graham has forgotten more than you will ever know,
Dialogue from a Netflix movie.
I used to like Hancock but after reading one of his books researching more things I have to agree that he is a grifter.
How much of it is fact and not fiction though?
A very solid statement, with no possibility of measurement or verification. Perfect for Hancock.
Graham even ADMITS his stuff is fiction.
You’re Hancock videos pop up from time to time and I have to watch them every time 😂 you have great content sir!
Ha, glad to know that something from my channel is getting promoted by CZcams.
As someone who is undecided on Hancock and who is actively seeking arguments for and against, you might be interested in my criticism of the intro to this video. It's the same criticism I have of so much of the media coverage of him. You call his 'advanced civilization' theory outlandish, but give no qualitiative refutation of that argument, and for God's sake enough with the Ayahuasca shit it's a cheap trick and irrelevant. If someone raises a specific criticism of him and proceeds to offer no supporting arguments, it raises a lot of red flags
Update after watching the rest of the video: the arguments against Hancock's Mars theories are substantive and I think they're relevant to his wider narrative. On the other hand the derisive and personal nature of the video raises red flags. My take is that, ironically, a large portion of people who buy into fraudulent theories actually respond better to substantive arguments than bullshit.
agreed!
It makes sense that someone who thinks Hancock is credible would comment before the video is even over.
Jesus just listen to the arguments being made.
The one making outrages claims (Hancock) is the one who must prove what they are saying.
This video is very tame and to the point.
Stop being offended on behalf of snake oil salesmen who you must be foolish to buy into.
@@KneeSlice1775 I'll respond to your 'points' in order:
1) Like I said at the beginning of my post, I'm on the fence about whether or not Hancock is credible. As for commenting on the video before it was over, I specifically commented on the intro, which was over. Then I later commented on the rest of the video, after it was over. So not sure what your issue is with that
2) I would agree that Hancock needs to defend his claims -- but he does! In all his videos! That DOES NOT mean his claims must be true, but he gives all kinds of qualitative arguments. My point, which went over your head, is that if someone is criticizing Hancock's theories, they should ALSO provide qualitative arguments. In this video there was a mix -- some qualitative arguments, but also some personal, irrelevant, and red-flag-raising statements.
3) haha not sure why you thought I was offended, I am not. And as previously stated, I'm on the fence about Hancock, so when you say I buy into his 'Snake Oil' you're not making much sense.
At the end of the day, if the maker of this video seeks to discredit Hancock (or for that matter if you seek to discredit me), you will not be successful by making general non-qualitative statements or personal statements -- we will not respect your opinions, much less be convinced by them, unless you offer arguments that use reasoning and rationale
> but give no qualitiative refutation of that argument
There's zero evidence for it.
Wait, he's "...telling lies to make money?", I'm a retired barrister and I've never heard of him.
Underrated comment.
Do your own research & judgement. Graham debated Zahi Hawass, the top Egyptologist & Zahi ended up getting emotional at the open floor questions & leaving. Understand even this guy has a reason for saying what he is just like everyone. Think for yourself.
@@kode_kween Stop pretending you have the discipline or capacity to conduct actual non-biased research.
@@LetsConquerTheUniverseTogether sure thing squirrel
@@kode_kween Zahi Hawass is not "the top Egyptologist", except in his own mind. He is a well connected Egyptian bureacrat that's ideal for Hancock to have as a foil.
The part that's really scary is the amount of people who believe these conspiracies. Watching the Joe R. Podcast and reading the comments of "Graham Hancock changed my life" or "I wish I had a history teacher like him" etc is the part that's scary. The dude hardly has a background in much of anything related to science but portrays himself as an expert.
Stefan Milo, who does have an archeologoy background and education, debunks his claims using the latest research. With evidence and of course logic.
Thanks for pointing him out as I've been following him for years.
You have a new subscriber!
The "OMG he changed my life" thing from credulous fools drives me crazy, and we saw the same sort of thing going on with COVID, for example in the video where a doctor goes to a school board meeting in some town, claims he's an immunologist (he isn't) and proceeds to berate them for wearing masks while he vomits 10 minutes' worth of vaguely scientific-sounding claims that are clearly nonsense to anyone with basic critical thinking skilks, but have just enough of a veneer of "science" to fool imbeciles.
So many people responded with comments like "He opened my eyes!" and "This is the truth they're hiding from us!" and of course "He changed my life!"
People like that have no concept of what the scientific method is, are extremely susceptible to conspiracies, and are unable to articulate a coherent explanation for why they believe something, but they're also so profoundly ignorant that they'll dismiss actual experts who have devoted their lives to a particular discipline.
As far as Joe Rogan, only people who are misguided and/or ignorant would trust a former game show host and MMA clown for medical advice and information on heady topics.
Calling Graham Hancock a 'grifter' just shows how devoid of meaning that word now is, and how cynically it is used.
You're right, he's a conman, not a grifter.
Snake oil salesman also fits Hancock.
@@davidwatson2399 Yeah, except the snake-oil salesman, at least, gives you something for your money...
His ideas seem very reminiscent of ideas about a lost super civilization that became popular in the early 20th century and grew out of the spiritualist movement. Helena blvastsky comes to mind
It's not a super civilization it's just a note advanced civilization than hunter gatherers he proposes
@@MadlandsMedia Let's get real it fluctuates depending on what he think sells better at the time.
Sells being the operative term here.
@@MadlandsMedia LOL...A single, worldwide, civilization that built megalithic structures all over the world is just a note advanced civilization at the time of hunter/gatherers and not a super civilization?!? Lol. Weird.
I don’t know why but I find myself just shaking my head at most of what you have to say
exactly, you have no idea why because you believe complete nonsense spewed by graham. You have no objection to what this man said, you just blindly follow things that seem appealing to you.
@@ocean34560 you nailed it. he must be a rogan fan
@@ocean34560 ditto to you
The reason you’re shaking your head is because you’re hearing information which conflicts with the lies you’ve been told.
Fanciful tales of lost civilizations are interesting and appealing. People like to feel like they’re privy to esoteric knowledge. The information in this video exposes the lies and it doesn’t feel very good to realize that you’ve been lied to, that you’ve accepted those lies and that the truth is not as interesting as the fanciful fantasies that Graham “The Grifter” Hancock is selling.
Ive read your comments in other threads. It's not hard to figure out why.
31:15 It's ALWAYS about the MONEY!! Yes! The publisher ALWAYS ask: But can it SELL?
Profit,Profit, PROFIT! I highly suggest you don't think alot into this book too much. Good stuff though. Joel Mosier/J.Terran Author of ANCIENT MYSTERIES REVEALED.
Stoner sci fi writer with a posh accent and zero shame who decided he could make more money pretending his story premises were true, and boy, was he right. He's also the perfect guest for pseudoscience talk show jamborees like the JRE, where you can say pretty much anything that sounds good, and the host and audience will act as if it somehow obligates academics to disprove it.
I can only laugh, this is ridiculous. The liar here is you sir.
It’s kind of sad, and I’m trying not to do it just in case it leads me to overlook things, but a lot of what this grifter does send up instant red flags to me.
Doing things like casting aspersions upon a significant part of, or indeed the entire scientific community, with no evidence other than nonsense allusions to their supposed insincerity, moral depravity, and/or lack of connection to some supernatural BS, is beyond disingenuous, it’s insidious.
They can’t logically just come out and ask people to join their efforts. Yet they can dangle the mystery in front of everyone and make it interesting enough to look into
*“No evidence for the civilizations Hancock claims”*
And no evidence for the civilizations that would have to precede the advanced civilizations he describes.
I’m convinced Joe Rogan takes a grift cut from his show guests considering how large of a gullible audience he has. Not quite the level of Alex “Stay Hard” Jones, but some of the batshit crazy stuff I’ve heard to come from here is laughable, if not dangerous.
But hey…if there’s a buck to be made, right?
Graham Hancock : Thersites the historian's grifting exposed.
How is Thersites a grifter, you're delusional
All content that Graham Hancock explores in his work was already covered by The Firesign Theater in their seminal album "Everything You Know Is Wrong" .
Good reference. So many laughs. How are things in "sector R"?
That may go over the heads of people under 60. Thanks for the memory, really!!! That theme music occasionally pops into my head and I couldn't remember the source until now!
says people afraid to ask questions .... almost all of what he and jaw said about giza and teh sphynx is perfectly plausible and supported by the majority of teh evidence, teh only evidence supporting teh mainstream theories is the word of corrupt political actors in the antiquities dept of egypt and the british museum system./...who is just trying to justify looting artifacts;..... so get a clue....actually read his books because he doesnt say anything as fact..... he is alwo a very compelling fiction writer....
@@cultureshock5000 How utterly meaningless.
😂 nice :)
He's a total scam
Its a fact* that spin dictor Carl Sagan wrote his hit song, "Little Miss Can't be Wromg" about Graham Handcock.
*falsifiable
So many Hancock simps in this comment section. Anyone who takes Graham seriously can not be taken seriously. Yes, that includes Joe Rogan.
I suppose we'll forget all of his ideas for a better modern society where we choose to make sovereign personal decisions over our own body then? Sure, there's a few sides of his work that aren't 100% reliable.
But his work on ancient cultures relationships with entheogenic plants is full of wonderful facts -- and lessons to be learned. His stance on the modern world and psychedelics is the good side of him.
Okay, I'm a Hancock simp, that's fine, he's a cool dude anyway.
He no longer avoids personal attacks, he's always attacking archaeologists and historians.
{:o:O:}
What I want to do is stop Graham Hancock from asking pertinent questions about anomalies standard archeology either cannot explain, refuse to explain, present oversimplified or unrealistic explanations for.
My main goal is to stop Graham Hancock from earning money from his work.
#Make Graham Hancock Homeless (MGHH)
Haha nice satire
It’s a very cynical reading of his intentions, but I agree he is flying well past the evidence. I think cynical motives are present, as they are in everyone, but I think he is genuinely excited by the possibilities more than anything, and gets carried away smoking pot and writing crackpot books for AM radio. Hippy scientist yes, grifter I think not as much, but I grant your points about how slipshod his research can be.
The problem I have, is that the books is almost 30 years old, if ones going to 'discredit' someone, discredit the current work, not what was written 30 years ago.
Not to mention, the small point that governments now openly state that there are anomalies that are not from this world,
Now if one pressures that axiom 'aliens do exist' which doesn't seem that implausible, as multiple government officials from multiple governments have stated such, so it's not so far out to make a claim that there are constructions of some sort on Mars. Entirely viable argument, given the axiom: Aliens do in fact exist
On what planet is he a scientist? He's a conman plain and simple
@@homersimpson2159 your pretending to be Homer Simpson, stfu
Hancock is a journalist and never claims to be a scientist.
Yeah its all very well and good saying that. But the truth is in all of his work and interveiws a good deal of time goes into slandering archeology and academics around it. Thats inexcusable and even if he has good intentions for his own work, he sure as hell doesn't have any regard for others and their work.
Well, Getting high is not his evidence in any of his books, so you have either never read an of his books , or being incredulously salacious.
And you didn’t watch more than 2 minutes of the video, clown
@@ethanwilliamson782 shut yo mouth
Graham, the sci-fi writer. far from reality. very far.
Kind of lost you when you admitted that you have not read "America before". Hancock may be wrong or he may be right, but attacking him without reading his books is absolutely wrong in the context of public discourse, it is the lowest form of debate and I am truly disgusted by your attempt to bring down a man, who is so far above you.
Science, unlike Graham Hancock's ridiculous claims, requires peer reviewing and a very close examination of one’s claims by others to see if those claims actually hold up to everyone's scrutiny. Graham and his followers on the other hand, just ignore the scrutiny of others. That's part of his attraction to his followers. They love to see him as a rebel, as an outsider who is discovering new things and defeating the “mainstreamers” who doubt their hero. It feels empowering to feel like you’re in on his secret discoveries and defeating the system. You can see happening in the comment section of any of the CZcams videos he is in.
He is a rebel hero...to lots of inexperienced people who get taken in by his b.s.
Also, because of the internet itself, there is now an entire tribe of other misled people who have found each other online and who can engage each other on social media sites, which makes it almost self perpetuating. Unlike doing something like believing in Santa Claus as an adult, it doesn’t cost them anything socially to keep believing in what makes them happy, regardless of how accurate it actually is.
Most of you guys who fall for Graham Hancock’s stories get so wrapped up in what you heard from him that it's nearly impossible for you to let go of it anymore or maintain any healthy skepticism. You are only interested in the excitement and emotional charge you get out of being told about "lost civilizations" and "impossible mysteries."
To give into the method of science at this point in time, after months or even years of being fans of the “alternative,” you would have to simultaneously admit to yourself that you might have been tricked, which is hard enough to face, let go of something in your life that has been getting you really excited and that stirs your up your runaway imagination, and also you would have to examine the subject in more depth and learn more about it, something that you probably weren’t/aren't really interested in, in the first place.
When Graham Hancock says something like: “Egyptologists can’t explain __________(fill in the blank)…that’s enough for you. You have no interest in fact checking it or investigating his claim.
You guys always remain on the surface level of any of historical subjects that you are told about because you are basically scientifically illiterate. Graham Hancock is more than willing to stir you up...telling you his stories…feeding your emotions and your runaway imaginations…and ca$hing in your inexperience and your willingness to believe whatever he tells you.
It’s actually sad and pathetic to watch.
@@davidleomorley889 Well. He is thinking outside the box. Looking for alternatives to the mainstream information that is proven to be wrong, over and over again.
Narrow-minded sheep that believes everything that is feeded to them from the mainstream community, and to afraid to let go of their prestigious ego and step outside their comfort zone. That is the same as going backwards. Refusing to accept that there are alternatives that makes it necessary to question the history that is written to today's date.
@@davidleomorley889 Cultures around the world speak on the same (or at the very least incredibly similar) flood myth and when referring to Egypt, the sphinx can arguably hold erosion from heavy waterfalls only around egypt 11-13k years ago during the same time an asteroid hit greenland .. how is that horse shit
@@JA-yx9mq "There's a sucker born every minute" was a saying in the 19th century about P.T Barnum being able to trick people into believing in nonsensical things like the ‘Fiji mermaid,” “The Cardiff Giant” the “161 year old nursemaid” and many other hoaxes designed to earn an income from.
The ability continues into the internet age and the fantastical stories & videos on CZcams about “lost civilizations,” “unexplainable mysteries” and “ancient high technology" put out by profit seeking book authors like Graham Hancock, Brien Foerster, UnchartedX and others like them are the proof.
Just like the older hoaxes, the vast majority of people who fall for them simply can't help themselves. They are drawn to them like a moth to a flame and can't bring themselves to watch any scholarly produced lectures or other educational information that threatens to debunk what gets them excited and thereby spoil the fun and excitement they get out of believing in the stories being spread by the CZcams mystery mongers...and so they will look away from that information and/or attack the people who point out their mistake in judgment.
@@biotribe123
You: "Narrow-minded sheep that believes everything that is feeded to them from the mainstream community, and to afraid to let go of their prestigious ego and step outside their comfort zone."
Me: Narrow-minded sheep that believes everything that is feeded to them from the online "alternative history" industry, and to afraid to let go of their prestigious ego and step outside their comfort zone.
I realize that everyone is on their own stage of learning about life, but I think too many people these days, are investing too much of their time being convinced, and convincing themselves, to believe in crazy and irrational ideas about the ancient past. The belief in “alternative timelines” and “advanced high technology” and other questions like “who built the pyramids?” are purposely being pushed on CZcams to people without experience…all to sell them shitty books. Lot’s of otherwise normal people are being taken advantage of….and making them sound like children. After watching these videos for months or sometimes years, they come to really admire the people that are making the videos and that in turn boosts their own ego and makes them feel like they have discovered a secret that the “mainstream” is yet unaware of.
We jokingly call these people pyramidiots. Many of them are annoying, overconfident and very sure of themselves.
What do they all share? Inexperience.
Most of them are hooked for life…and are never going to escape their ignorance. Why?
Besides the convincing nature of video itself, there is a deep sense of personal loss and shame people have to face if they are going to admit to themselves that they could have been mislead by someone online. I think when these people hear or see someone debunking the “alternative” ideas about history they have been led to believe in, sometimes after watching them faithfully for years, their subconscious takes over and just automatically says “NO!” It’s like our subconscious has an involuntary a way of protecting us from the pain of being wrong on that level. Plato talks about this predictable negative reaction in his allegory of the cave.
The famous actor Daniel Day Lewis speaks about a similar phenomena in this way. He says that after taking on a character for a movie role, and then living with that character inside of him, sometimes playing it publicly for weeks or even months before the filming even begins, he feels an incredible sense of loss when he finally has to give it up after the filming ends.
I think it’s a similar loss for people who have spent months or even years believing what they heard by someone on a CZcams channel or a favorite TV show. When they hear someone or read about someone challenging the ideas they have come to believe, their ego just can’t take that loss.
Ignorance carries a very big stigma in today’s information driven, modern world. And, since 99% of those people will never actually visit the ancient sites in person or study what scholars actually say about the ancient sites, it doesn’t really matter what they are told…as long as there are still believers out there and the $$$ keeps coming in to the people making these claims on CZcams.
Many of the victims of these videos will tell you that you have a “closed mind” or that you only listen to “mainstream crap” if you don’t join with them in their belief.
Also, for most people, there is no societal pressure for them to change their minds. Unlike believing in Santa Claus as an adult, it doesn't actually cost them anything to keep believing in what makes them happy…regardless of how accurate it really is because there is now an entire online community of other misled people to engage with and so it’s almost self perpetuating.
It might be surprising to learn, but many people simply value the exciting feeling they get inside by believing in these ideas, more than they do at seeking truthful and fact based answers about the ancient past.
I have heard these arguments before. When Chariots of the Gods came out. scholars and College professors attach the author. Yet at no time did the author say "this is the truth". No he asked questions that these same scholars and Professors did not want to have to address. Hancock does the same thing. Why do these people get upset? They make money selling their books on college campuses. Have you seen the prices of text book at a college book store?
So, you're going to use "he's just asking questions" defence? Seriously?
@@FrostekFerenczy Read the book. Have you? He asked questions the church does not want to answer.
Erm no, I trust graham, thanks
Yeah, Graham has spent over 25 years studying this work, plus he's a far more open-minded individual and states ideas for the betterment of modern society. What's this dude, err, some American dude sat in his office with a stain on his shirt.
Graham knows what he's talking about while u r talking shit!!!
This guy blows
Graham, the sci fi writer. that guy? wow, no thanks. pseudoscience.
LibertyChap nothing in your comment is a reason to take Graham seriously, every thought you expressed was fallacious.
When Graham Hancock was confronted and backed into a corner on JRE he would repeatedly use I'm not a scientist I don't make these claims I'm just a reporter. He will never have a spine to defend his own claims he always used that sameout.same out. Hancock is spineless grifter not worth anyone's time. I do like Randall Carlson though as his claims are all based in science and he will defend his claims with evidence.
bro, the archeologist got totally destroyed and embarrassed in that episode, he had very stupid opinions
sskspartan You must be a Science denier. I’d venture your a Trump supporter as well and have a hot take on Covid to boot?
@@Wallyworld30 What is wrong with Trump?
Juan Lopez History will study this presidency for hundreds of years. How is it 40% of Americans can’t see huge flaws in this man? If we didn’t have a horrible Pandemic he was pretending wasn’t real I’d truly be fascinated but this crazy experiment couldn’t have been done at a worse possible time. Republicans are supposed to be the Christian party yet they elect the first atheist president. Being atheist isn’t a flaw but again fascinating the Republicans would do that. He’s a cult of personality like America hasn’t seen since JFK.
@@Wallyworld30 you have a serious condition sir, it's called TDS (trump derangement syndrome). Seek professional help as soon as possible.
Thank you for making this. I admit I got hooked into his claims when I watched his JRE interview and didn't scrutinize his claims. But lately, the algorithm suggested legitimate archeology and history channels like yours that debunks BS claims like his. Thank you for the work that you do.
Same here. As soon as you realise how real archeology is considerably more interesting, detailed and compelling. And that the people in it are very good genuine hard working people. You can't help but have a bit of hate for Graham and the wool he pulls over peoples eyes.
Graham says he’s not a archeologists. He’s a journalist. This channel is operative for main stream archeologists.
I came to this video because I'm genuinely looking for some one to debunk Graham Hancock, instead what I find is pretentious grating voice failing at doing that, and so I could only manage to get 25 mins into this mess of a rebuttal.
-First 15 mins you dont actually tackle the points he makes, you just call him names, the classic ' attack the person not the argument' which for me is sign of a weak mind. It becomes ironic and hypocritical when you go on to have a good whinge about how he doesnt provide enough evidence to back his claims.
-How is Hancock appealing to a right wing audience, given his stance on recreational drugs and how 'the right wing' and conservative values are against exactly that? This 'arugment' is border line the standard of what we have come to expect from but hurt internet trolls 'I disagree with him and he hurt my feelings so i'll call him a facsist'. Theres always one f**wit out there who will turn something that has nothing to with politics into a political argument
- How can you generalise joe Rogan audience like that when at the same time he has had literally hundreds of scientists from all disciplines discussing their field, he literally had one episode where he had the editor of popular mechanics come on WITH HANCOCK and debate him, my God your pretentiousness must be crippling for you.
It's really telling about the (lack of) quality of your character that you would classify Hancock's calm demeanour and him NOT personally attacking his critics as nothing more than a ploy to further his grift, because obviously if this wasn't the case you'd be an even bigger hypocrite than I have already pointed you out to be, given that half your argument is literally a personal attack on Hancock.
Anyone reading this, if you want a Hancock debunking video that isnt delivered by a pretentious bleating man child I recommend Stefan Milos channel.
He doesn't have much structure and generalizes but that's it... I don't see what you are so up in arms about
@@user-mw2vn7pv8n He just got butthurt because he made fun of Joe Rogan's fanbase lol
"I've not read America before" You should have stopped talking at that point.
Right!!??
He said he skimmed it. Why read the whole thing? Graham even admits he writes fiction and plays it off as research.
@@Quixote1818 Citation needed.
this video isn’t about america before, so who cares? This is about a completely seperate Hancock scam job
Can't refute his points so you use some minor irrelevant statement to dismiss everything he says. Yawn
thanks dad
Stack a bunch of rocks together and carve them in ways to look cool. Yeah I’m out…
I can’t help but notice those trying to debunk Hancock focus on things other than facts. Face it, we know very little and he could be right.
"We know very little. Hancock knows plenty."
@doggone Did you see the quotation marks? lol
@@Ben942K no he doesn't. Nor anyone in particular. His theories are probably full of shit, but anyone believing that modern humans have full and clear knowledge of the past is on the same level as believing in flat earth. The Roman Empire isn't even that old when put in contrast with the history of humanity and there's already so many things we do not know about them.
While I 100% do not believe Hancock's spiritual theories I do believe that modern archeologists are full of themselves and have grown used to smelling their own farts.
Facts are "things".
He got up in the assembly and attacked Agamemnon in the words of Achilles [calling him greedy and a coward] ... Odysseus then stood up, delivered a sharp rebuke to Thersites, which he coupled with a threat to strip him naked, and then beat him on the back and shoulders with Agamemnon's sceptre; Thersites doubled over, a warm tear fell from his eye, and a bloody welt formed on his back; he sat down in fear, and in pain gazed helplessly as he wiped away his tear; but the rest of the assembly was distressed and laughed .... There must be a figuration of wickedness as self-evident as Thersites-the ugliest man who came to Troy-who says what everyone else is thinking.[6]
Keep making content, your work is always appreciated
Excellent deconstruction of Graham's strategies. Especially about how he molds himself to his immediate audience. He really is heading the way of Elron Hubbard. I can see him starting is own religion at some point
You're a moron to compare him to L Ron Hubbard. (The correct way to spell it. ) he is a journalist asking questions and presenting alternative logical hypothesis to earth's history. Not a cult leader. The only dogma involved is your own.
@@MadlandsMedia oops. Spelling mistake. I recant. Clearly my analysis is completely inaccurate.
It's fine. Elron is what the scientologists called him in Spanish speaking countries.
It's been 2 years since the release of this video, but in regards to Hancock maintaining his cool...
He was rude and abusive on Joe Rogan when addressing Shermer. Out of nowhere.
Just a reminder.
PS: just noticed that you focus mainly on "right wing" audiences. So, with THAT focus you firmly establish that you deserve as much credit as a charlatan like Hancock.
We've seen plenty of left wing nutters defend Hancock on his Netflix series.
We've also seen left wing atheists defend him ferociously and attack what they believe are religious people attacking him.
Instead of coming from your political ideology you should focus solely on debunking or exposing this charlatan.
He has supporters on both the Left and the Right. Everyone who is anti-science (those who are pro flat earth, anti space, anti evolution, anti biology) or want to force a certain anti established facts view are on his side.
I agree
Life is hard and dull for most people, believing is this wacko shit gives them a sense of wonder and the idea that they have something over other people, whom they are often envious of for having better lives than they.
🤣
@@nikolaihanuschak191 right?
That's probably a big part if it.
Very good analyses, working professionally in an archaeological field would add, I read Handcock's Fingerprints of the Gods many years ago. His tactics are excellent, to try and come across to the reader as the voice of reason. He will give his (outlandish) view then say, all we have to do is test it, but the archaeologists (villains) refuse to do this, surely in science you test stuff to see if it is right or wrong. This is all very reasonable to the reader and leads the reader to wonder why the archaeologist wont test this idea.... He then moves to stage 2 of the con, and suggests as the archaeologists won't test this theory, do they have an agenda to cover up the truth..... reversing the rolls now archaeology is a conspiracy and he is fighting against a conspiracy and his readers too are the sensible people opposing conspiracies. Also basic human curiosity is sparked there is a truth out there about our great monuments such as the pymamids I want to know what the archaeologists are hiding from me.... Finally he moves to the third and final stage, he then casts himself in the roll of benevolent revealer of this secret hidden truth and all you have to do is pay him money to get it..... Sometimes archaeologists challenge him but the problem is archaeological truth tends to be anti-climatic to the fanciful mindset of his audience. The pyramids were built by Egyptian conscripted labour, not ancient Atlanteans.
@chefaopt Actual geophysicist gives a good talk about that here; watch?v=559K616ohaI Anyway, it's impossible to separate the "claims" from Hancocks grift. Here's why - in science you say "hmm. these water erosion marks look different from what we expect. let's test them, and keep in mind everything else we know from history, linguistics, archaeology, geology, astronomy, physics (you get the picture)". But Hancock says "these water erosion marks look different, so *all of those other disciplines are false, or involved in a conspiracy to trick the public*". Even if we could not explain the water erosion *yet*, that would not mean that the mountains of other evidence about the Egyptians suddenly disappeared. You remember those "faster than light" Neutrino experiments that "contradicted everything we know about physics", and turned out to be a measuring mistake? Same thing.
@chefaopt Thanks for the link - that video you linked by Sephen Milo was a good distillation of what I meant; I recommend watching it again and paying very close attention to what he says about erosion, and also to the multi-disciplinary evidence in the last half of the video.
Oh. But the science backing it up. 🙄
Oops, your bad.
ooh, the claim to authority, is that one of the tenets of science? if you're a scientist that means your words are truer than mine?
@@xmathmanx does a guy with a basketball in his hand deserve as much respect as LeBron or mj? Experience matters, doing things that represent value in the field matters, and proving yourself to be a liar/fraud who attempts to grift naive people also matters. Stop crying that your "theory" doesn't get respect. It's not that everyone else is a big meanie, its just because you have no valuable points to make and create noise for the sake of it
I'm glad I found this. I saw him on Rogan and found him abrasive. I don't know why Rogan likes him so much. I thought he was full of it too.
I think you need to review what is right wing versus left wing, especially with respect to conspiracy theories. You say right wing and then use a left wing conspiracy. Despite this confusion about who wants big government control, you did a decent job.
Spot on 🎉 leave his political ideas out of it 🙃 ..
" I've not read his book, but I've seen interviews"?? So you're pronouncing judgement on a book you've never read, but nevertheless say he has no evidence?
So you have literally no idea what you are talking about? But it's he who is the "grifter"?
Graham has enough cash to sponsor actual scientific work but he'll never actually do that. It would ruin his whole narrative.
Said a cynical dying human
@@JM4lN_PvP - Are you dying of butthurt?
I think Hancock is right, for asking questions that people are afraid to ask. I think he is on to something. How can we possibly know everything about human history unless you take chances. Think out side of the box. We need people like Hancock. How will we dig deeper if we stop at the first thing we find. I believe the evidence will speak for itself once it comes to fruition. Graham Hancock please keep doing what your doing. Ask those difficult questions.
What questions he has done that actual historians or archaeologists haven't?
It's called entertainment it's no different than professional wrestling. Do you get mad at Hulk Hogan for being Hulk Hogan ? Graham Hancock is a entertaining writer and podcast guest and there is nothing wrong with that
I do think he is a passive aggressive rageaholic. 😅 he is much like a religious apologist.
I've never heard of this before
It's a conspiracy to prevent you
from discovering the Truth ....
btw.; I think the word "grift" might be a little too subtle, in describing Hancock's money-making-machine XD
@@DG-iw3yw There's some serious nepotism at work there, his son has an exec position at Netflix.
@@mnomadvfx He is in my opinion a very Narcissistic person who gets a hard on from slandering arcehologists and manipulating people into being his followers. Grahams believers behave like a cult.
He worked for the Rothschild owned economist
In regards to the evidence he's offering I'd go even further and call it a "pile of evidence". Or even a "steaming pile of evidence"
lot of hate for a reporter. def touching a nerve with the "intellectuals".
graham is a fraud. you fallen for his scam.
now you are mad because random people on youtube are exposing "intellectual" for a fraud he is
@@spatrk6634 im not mad, i think its hilarious. ever since john anthony west and Dr. robert schoch went to Egypt and dare question the Egyptology time line the intellectual establishment has freaked out on guys like graham. and then they found gobekeli tepe. then they found the cave in the Altai mountains. then they discovered that the oldest glyphs ever found are in colombia south america. all people like graham are saying is this stuff needs to be understood deeper. the backlash for that is immense. its laughable.
@@wesdavis6942 yes. nobody takes pseudoscientists seriouslyyy..
yea. and none of those discoveries provided evidence for people like graham.
People generally hate liars like Hancock.
Nice vid! You are now ready to get a girlfriend and start life
Lol
You dropped this. Here you go. ---> "W".
Don't get mad just because Hancock's grift worked on you
@@liamconverse8950 dont get mad and hate your parents cause they named you something ridiculously dumb like Liam
@@mseidl91 Lol what's with this troll army? Why are so many people defending this grift?
This video is very interesting to me for a number of reasons. When I grew up, it was a great improvement to replace your manual typewriter with an electric one, electronic ones, like Canons, not to mention computers and printers, were over a decade away. I had moved up to junior high and was tired of the insipid kiddie stuff in the library, so I got my mother to write a permission letter to access the YA department. They noticed that I was quiet and serious and was interested in Isaac Asimov [science and science fiction], and soon stopped monitoring me. I was interested in aliens, UFOs, Atlantis, possible lost civilizations, etc. I didn't restrict myself to YA. Where similarities with this video appeared was in the history section. I found and read the writings of the infamous Error von Dummkopf* whose name has been disguised to protect the guilty, batty and grifting.
I think the book's title was something like, "The Chevy of the Gods." I was a J.H. kid, and I could tell the "thought process" was dumb and the so called evidence was nonsense. Everything said about Hancock seems to be true of EvD as well. An old cave drawing of a stick figure with something in its hand with a semicircle with short radiating lines above couldn't be a spear in the hand or a feather headdress, or sun representation, no, it must be a gun and a space helmet. And, of course, the truth is only in these books that tell what scientist and government conspirators want to keep secret. I thought, "Do adults really believe this crap? It should be in the fiction section, not history!"
It wasn't until much later that your remarks about grifter pastors occurred to me, too. I had just read something by the famous William Lane Craig, and was astounded that he was famous even though his work contained logical fallacies, and the same technique noted here. First make a suggestion, vague reference or the like, then later use this "supposition" as fact and proof of concept. There was also the same misuse of science or facts, like, 90% of people who get cancer drank milk as children, therefore milk causes cancer [this is not what was actually used, but is typical of the backwards thinking].
If videos had been a "thing" back then I could have made a video like this. One thing about Eric von Dummkopf's work was that it caused me to wonder about the landing strips for spacecraft in Peru. I got a book about the Nazca Lines, which was fascinating and went into real archaeological detail. The "landing strips" BS didn't survive real information about the sites, the construction and the other details. Of course people like Hancock don't expect people to think through what is presented or investigate the real [i.e. rational and scientific] facts. Where I disagree with this video is that I do not think these people are "harmless." Far from it, they try to water down school curricula, and promote very harmful anti-science beliefs, about vaccinations, epidemics, climate change and the like. They promote magical thinking, conspiracies, and oppose critical thinking.
You forgot it is dangerously close to Nazi Mythology.
Modern definition of critical thinking:.
Generally accepted science (except for what they use everyday...)= guv'mint.
Guv'ment lies.
In Cheapos of the Gods, "Could these be landing strips for alien space craft?" Then someone took a picture with a coin for scale, and the bushes and trees in the photo, were obviously tiny lichen growing on the rock. The Gods had very small chariots; smaller then an ink pen. I got my start with Asimov et al, as well. I read all of Asimov's sci-fi books, and then, after exhausting my library of all sci-fi, read his science-fact books. As a 15 year old, I saw a copy of Chariots of the Grifters, and quickly knew it was bull dung.
@@gyrateful Don't use useful fertilizer, dung, for worthless, useless product! We seem to have followed the same trajectory to rationality and critical thinking.
@@shaolin1derpalm Some people know about the evidence based scientific method and know that peer review uncovers mistakes or even if someone wants not to play by the evidence based rules. This is why we have working smart phones, the internet and not stone tablets with incartations to call for cthulhu.
Are you sure you read the book, don't be jealous sport,left wing lunacy at its finest.
Hancock is nonsense, but I got a kick out of 4:08 “I read his book cover to cover, well I at least skimmed it, I didn’t read every single word.” is kinda the same as Hancock not doing his research..
"I've not read his book but I've seen him in interviews"
Great way to start. I've followed Graham forever and although he's talks about DMT and his experiences he has never claimed he received all of this info from a "goddess" he also never says he KNOWS beyond a shadow of a doubt but is asking questions. If we had a civilization that was destroyed 10,000 years ago or more stone is the only thing that would be left acting like there would be hard evidence beyond that is absurd. You also fail to mention he is a journalist not an archaeologist. My main issue with people acting like they're debunking him say he is making definitive statements not asking questions about our history.
Where to start...ok look, if this channel wanted to be duplicitous, the Creator wouldn't have bothered to transparently tell us the limits of his research efforts. Nice that you did not bother to evaluate that in context with how he also clearly explained his methodology, reasons, + resources right at the beginning, & told us what his format would be.
Also it's widely accepted + valid practice in close reading/analysis/reportage to look beyond the primary text being examined to additional context, like interviews, to better understand the text + author + underlying ideas/intentions. This is what research can look like. It's not comprehensive but neither is Hancock, his references are lazy or unreliable, & sometimes contradict his text. Citations are supposed to credibly bolster + confirm arguments/interpretations being presented --- it's widely accepted citations shouldn't be "actually lol what u just read is totally wrong". As the channel Creator points out, it's fair to draw a line with your efforts when it's already leagues above the bar set by the person you're arguing with. The debunk had way more context, reliable source citations, & references you can go to see with your own senses than the Mars book had. The effort made was already superior & it's not very reasonable to expect people who use their spare time to debunk conspiracy thinking, scammers, ideologies, etc to have to put in maximum effort all the time when the opposition clearly hasn't + won't. Think of it as the intellectual or labour equivalent of "throwing good money after bad".
Your notion of what is left in the aftermath of destroyed civilizations is incorrect; it matters how it was "destroyed" but destruction leaves scientifically identifiable clues + evidence behind.
You're also incorrect about what's left behind that's discernible after 10,000yrs, implying that nothing would remain to be seen (I'll politely ignore your implied contradiction that we're apparently too primitive with our current science to detect the remains of ancient advanced civilizations that Hancockians are urging us to look for yet apparently Hancockians are fine with the "evidence" they find for their ideas using data + images from Viking missions & other projects that are def no longer cutting edge, so apparently that kind of primitive science gear/research is fine?). Regardless, you're way off. Just a quick Google will blow your mind when you see how far back we found evidence of a cooking fire. Add another zero to those 10,000yrs & you're closer to the truth than your original guess.
Have you looked at current early hominid evidence + interpretation? Even if you were relying on knowledge from half a century or more ago, long-known discoveries like Iberian cave sites dating back 40-60,000 years with hominid culture + habitation evidence in them make it clear you don't have a good grasp of what early civilizations are understood to be or be like, or how the evolved, & where the actual knowledge gaps are, & how we're overcoming limits (LIDAR is revolutionizing archaeology rn).
I urge you to check out how many different dating systems have been developed & how they can all work in a complimentary way to confirm or dispute artifacts + site ages & timelines.
It's unavoidable to mention with this topic, so I'll limit my comments on this, but if you are not interested in understanding any of the points I made already, you def haven't unpacked the racist assumptions underlying many of these conspiracy theories. I hope one day you sincerely try to understand why indigenous cultures find these theories abhorrent. They are not simply wrong theories; they do damage. I hope you can open your heart & mind enough to explore that aspect meaningfully one day.
So, you're into asking questions. Cool. Have you ever asked yourself why this would matter to you if it was true? Do you want it to be true? Why? What would it take for you to feel it's disproven? Are you genuinely just curious or passionate about an element in these topics that DON'T rely on the "conspiracy" parts? Have you tried to read a general interest scientifically middle-of-the-road book about geology or hominid evolution or the history of anthropology, refresh yourself on basic foundations of these concepts you're interested in?
Just start with those "bare rocks" you dismissed so easily. Look into rocks, start there. So much cooler + so much more interesting things are happening in the rocks you apparently think tell us nothing than you can imagine. I know I prob sound condescending + harsh to you, but honestly this stuff frustrates me bc so many laypeople just assume they can glance at specialties upon subspecialties, knowledge built over centuries of human collaboration, read a bit or watch a documentary, then somehow they are capable of evaluating evidence or theories that are core areas of research + scholarship on par with people who spend lifetimes working in those fields. Doesn't it piss you off when someone who has never worked at your job thinks they can tell you all about what you do + how you do it? Wouldn't it be weird if people kept treating your work as something anyone can do with zero experience or training, just jumping in, plus they assert they'll be doing your job better than you plus revolutionize your job + industry while maintaining ignorance about the most basic standard aspects of your work? Or if they also told you everyone you work with are all malevolent & are hiding the true + horrible facts of what your industry REALLY does & you're either in on it with them or a naive unaware rube?
He is a grifter though. You said it yourself. He's filling people with bs because there are many people waiting to be filled with bs. The fact that he wrote this mars book is a perfect example of how he is full of it.
@@picahudsoniaunflocked5426 once again you decide to write a book instead of give any examples of anything said. My main problem with a guy making the video is he gives no examples of anything Hancock has said to have citations to point to. How am I supposed to know what the citations are talking about if he doesn't even tell you what the citations are or what Hancock said. He just says this is what the citations look like. Grand Hancock doesn't do anything you said maybe you should actually unbiosely watch some of his interviews or videos something the guy who made the video said he did none of. That he doesn't really follow him that he didn't read his other books especially his most recent. It's nothing but a bunch of ad hominem attacks and bad ones at that. If I knew you were going to write a novella on how wrong you were you could have saved yourself a lot of time. If you had a point to make you would have made one quickly he wouldn't have needed to try to filibuster with the longest CZcams comment I've ever seen. Do better.
@@Ivan220996 he wrote the Mars book in 97 and of course he wrote it around the time a bunch of stuff about Mars is in the media because he wanted to make money. That doesn't make you a grifter that makes you someone who wrote stuff that was in popular culture to make money. It's absurd to act like someone writing books is somehow a grifter when all of his books tell you that he is not definitively saying anything just asking questions and not trying to sell you anything but trying to get you to ask questions instead of swallowing the orthodoxy
@@picahudsoniaunflocked5426 one more thing what basis do you have that destroyed civilizations would leave behind scientifically identifiable evidence after 10,000 years or more? Gobekli Tepe was intentionally buried and was just now found. There's a really good show called life after man that shows what would happen to our modern civilization after 10,000 years and guess what, nothing would be here genius. Please don't write me 20 paragraphs that if you can't refute something in a modicum of time don't take the effort. Also what are you talking about bare rocks where do I mention bare rocks and how uninteresting they are? I love geology I wear stones around my neck because of it that's a really weird thing to throw in there. Were you just thinking I wasn't going to read what you wrote or are you crazy and you wrote stuff that doesn't make any sense? I already understand all the points you made acting like finding Iberian cave civilizations is the same thing as detecting technology we don't understand is ignorant in the extreme acting like finding campfires is the same thing as finding buildings is also extremely ignorant especially when we know to look for those campfires because they're usually in villages that we've already found. I strongly advise you to open your mind and actually ask questions instead of repeating things you've been told. Human beings are way older than 10,000 years the fact that you don't know enough about Graham Hancock to know what they're arguing is that a global civilization was destroyed at the end of the last ice age when the younger dryas impact happened tells me pretty much all I need to know about what you know about him. The fact that you act like it's some kind of belief system also is a huge red flag. Questioning things and how they were done is not a belief system it's the opposite of one. I'm sorry if I upset your religious belief in the Orthodox beliefs of science that are being overturned on a regular basis like the Clovis first culture or how old modern humans really are or who built what and how old it is. You could have spent half the words you wrote but felt the need to jerk yourself off with your own shallow understanding of History. Do better.
I’m sitting here listening to you ramble on, pondering the validity of your claims…
I was listening with a critical mind, as I do like to hear opposing/ differing and new views of all subjects of interest.
I Didn’t even get through “Hancocks Formula” slide …. At roughly 8mins, before I had noticed YOU just enact every one of your own dot points.
I hope the irony of this does not escape you.
I’m not saying I agree with Hancock, nor think his theories are entirely based on fact. He definitely makes some big leaps, also tends to let his literary license get away from himself, on many claims. I had not heard any of his Mars theorist until your video. I doubt there is any valid points he makes in relation to Mars.
Now I haven’t read this book, nor any of his fiction novels, but I have seen and listened to hours and hours of his work regarding ancient civilisations from around the world.
It turns out, over the years, he has hit quite a few bullseyes. He has made some connections that “academia” or “scientists” simply did not ,nor would/could not make.
I have seen this so many times over the years. In many fields of study.
Academia and the supposed experts end up being chained to the dogma, the whims of funding committees, or the inability to face the fact that their own opinion, and sometimes life’s work has been incorrect.
By now, you would be labelling me a “right wing conspiracy theorist”
That “label” is something pseudo intellectuals, and ignorant /incompetent scientists love to throw around At anyone that disagrees with the dogma of the day.
I could carry on, tear apart your whole Ideological theory (trust the science), about everyone being low I.Q, right wing Conspiracy theorist’s.
But it would be a waste of both of our Time.
You simply do not seem to have the fundamental knowledge to understand what I would say……
Unless you did this video in such an advanced psychological mastery, in which you prove your own judgements. by presenting them, in a way that is a perfect example of what you are claiming hancock guilty of.
If it was not done in an ironic way, your time would be much better spent psychoanalysing yourself. The science, society, philosophy, history, archaeology,, quantum physics, astrophysics, construction techniques, stone carving, agriculture, geo-politics, engineering and chemistry.
zoom out, and Zoom in
Maybe then, if you are really looking for truth, and not just putting others down, You may leave a completely different view.
Also, You are projecting. To the fullest extent, but don’t seem to realise that.
On a positive note, this video is a perfect example of “Dunning/Kruger effect”- you don’t even know what you don’t know.
~ if there is typos, and grammatical errors ☝🏽 this was typed on my phone with a shattered screen and could only see about 10 words at a time.
Wow, what an extraordinary example of an Ad Hominem approach to criticism and one rendered all the more fascinating by your reliance on a technical-failure to explain your literary deficiencies. I think I'll take a leap here and theorize that, despite your feigned disinterest in his work, you are one of those rabid G.H. sycophants who worship at his altar and sacrifice to his particularly absurd theories. Allow me to introduce a thought into your obviously water-damaged brain: If someone calls you an ass, ignore them, if a second person calls you an ass, think about it, if a third person calls you an ass, buy a saddle. I say that only because, after reading your post, I can safely say that AT LEAST two other people in your life have already told you you're an ass...
Regarding your question at 4:20 (by coincidence, LOL!), of what that tactic by your friend is called. It's called GASLIGHTING.
Drugs? Prehistoric civilisation? Contact from spirits? This guy sounds like a spiritist, an occultist. They believed this stuff over a century ago.
It’s defies belief to think there wasn’t ancient civilisations.
If there were, they didn't use metal.
Hancock must be on to something to get all the negative press. Hancock might be confused but he’s not a grifter. Don’t know what your background is but I bet it has something to do with having you ego stepped on.
I don't think AT ALL that he is a grifter. He really believes in these things, 100%. He may be wrong, but he has some interesting perspectives, and is hardly the big evil problem you and others make him out to be. He is perfectly allowed to have different ideas and write books. You accusations are nonsense. You just don't like his ideas, which is fine, but the rest is bullshit.
The only thing is disagree with you on, is that this is a "right wing" thing. The majority of my right wing friends are the ones who respect history, whilst a lot of my left wing friends are "spiritual" and believe that aliens built the pyramids.
Hancock's a fantasy writer.
A good one.
This early book is very heavy on the woo woo. A lot of his newer work is highly speculative but also interesting, with some evidence, or at least loose logical extrapolation. I do read his books more like fiction, there’s still some compelling (or engaging) hypothesis in them though. I don’t think he’s a deliberate grifter, just very heavy on the woo.
I do think hancock is wrong, alot but I also thing he's uncovered quite a bit of some things that have weight but people use his drug use and openness to the woo woo to dismiss it all. And any person who claims to be scientific, at any level, knows that's not healthy either
His approach is still the same; come up with some insane idea from getting high then look for evidence of it. That's not how any sane person operates.
@@jonathansoko5368 but all of his garbage is based on justifying his own woo woo.
Well, he actually believes the "super" society was a bunch of psychic humans with sacred geometry.
He just writes less nonsense to make it digestible
A monetised video criticising an author for making money of the back of others. Oh the irony.
Scale, people, scale.
Weak butthurt from a Hankook follower.
Thank Christ we can finally put this mongrel to rest
The fact that you got more dislikes than likes is sad testimony to the fact how many modern day Fox Mulders - people who just "I want to believe" - there are...anyhow, thank you for this excellent debunk video and keep good work!
LOL. Hands down the worst debunk video of all time. Set your standards higher homie.
Thank you for making this video!
Graham "what if" Hancock. Like many I read some of his early books with interest. Cultural imperialism is his major tool. These primitive people could not have done this therefore a greater advanced technology must exist. What if this, what if that. I just regard him as background noise now. His recent series had many unintentional laugh out loud moments only convincing to Joe Rogan and the like.
Did you review "Fingerprints of the Gods"?
I haven't read his Mars book, but I know the kind of narratives that circulate about it, and they are speculative indeed, and I mostly don't agree with them. But indeed: Hancock is about the previous civilization, so why not take him on there? Clearly you don't like him, I'd tone down the 'conspiracy theorist' labeling, only normies find that exciting. Fact is that 'science' is indeed a joke, and totally corrupt, so it's not really so strange that people are critical of it. Hancock's truthseeking is highly fascinating, and there IS a lot of proof for previous civilizations. And also for a Flood. And Hancock is right about the 'conspiracy' of silence about the Flood, and the allergic reaction of the academics (as opposed to actual science).
A writer writing books is a huge grift.
If they're knowingly misleading people then it would be. No one said the act of someone writing a book in and of itself was a grift. Hence your comment is moronic.
@@Barbarous_Wretch what's knowingly? He. Has a perspective and he put it in a book. Agree or don't. He's not publishing under nonfiction/science/historical category. Everyone can't think for you. That's work you gotta put in for yourself
@@kode_kween Oh so your changing your argument. Originally everyone that wrote books had to be good. Now your changing your argument that Hancock specifically has a perspective in good faith. You're all mixed up. When you get your point straight come back to me.
@@Barbarous_Wretch Changing, no. Clarify, yes. The narrative just wasn't what you perceived it to be. I'm not here to convince you of anything. Agree or don't but understand that you aren't important enough for me to convince of anything.
@@kode_kween don't sweat it, these people watching this video are the grifters, they damn well know, graham's not saying it's fact, he's just putting forth a theory.
Either they grifters or they are insanely
narcissistic.
How do I know it must be one of these two options?
Because they also have no fucking clue, they also guess, the difference being they have to call us grifters and cons instead of putting forth logical claim.
If we are wrong and your 100% correct, just put forth the evidence, but they don't it's just name calling and degrading people over strawman points, these people are the real grifters.
He’s got a Netflix show now too…
“Why would he make this up!? What’s he have to gain!?”
Yeah..
As the great P T Barnum explained ; " There never has been and never will be a shortage of Rubes !'
how come hancock has a netflix contract & you are a you tuber ?
40:40 @ThersitistheHistorian the technique youre looking for is called "reframing" it is one of the techniques they learn in Neuro-Linguistic Programming. (NLP).
I also have a friend like yours but ive come to understand that its not about the conspiracy per se...its about "initiating someone" then becoming their "mentor" aka in nlp its a type of brain washing. theyre very manipulative
He got up in the assembly and attacked Agamemnon in the words of Achilles [calling him greedy and a coward] ... Odysseus then stood up, delivered a sharp rebuke to Thersites, which he coupled with a threat to strip him naked, and then beat him on the back and shoulders with Agamemnon's sceptre; Thersites doubled over, a warm tear fell from his eye, and a bloody welt formed on his back; he sat down in fear, and in pain gazed helplessly as he wiped away his tear; but the rest of the assembly was distressed and laughed .... There must be a figuration of wickedness as self-evident as Thersites-the ugliest man who came to Troy-who says what everyone else is thinking.[6]
@@goldenbrownish slurp slurp slurp
I don't smoke but there's something so deeply satisfying about a long deep hard thorough thoroughly-deserved debunking that makes me feel like a post-coital cliché 1970s New Yorker cartoon punchline afterwards. Ahhhhh.
There is "debunking" and there is "smear". There are also "debunking" videos on how Earth is actually flat, there never were dinosaurs and we never went to the moon. So be careful with anything that says or claims to be "debunking" anything. Often it's opinions presented as facts.
This isn’t a debunk. This is a disgusting use of ad hominem arguments from a chronically online Reddit scholar.
Its depressing that so many fall for these grifters
Neil de Grasse Tyson is another
@@yingyang1008 you wish.
@@yingyang1008 - Don't be silly.
@@FrostekFerenczy Einstein is hilarious also - space time, yeah OK bro
the pyramids of giza were covered in white limestone so no they were not red; however, there is one pyramid called the red pyramid further south
One of them was two tone with red casing stone. We know because some of it is still on there. They call it red, because it is.
@@BucketClinger It used red granite, it isn't actually red.