Ancient Apocalypse

Your point is well taken however I find some (some) of Hancocks inquiries are not satisfactorily explained by current scientific analysis or research.

I consider Hancock a "Tweener" many of his inquiries are not so outlandish as to be dismissed out of hand. Some of course are.

One must also consider that many levels of scientific inquiry have different adherents as to what is 'true" and what is "not" on any particular subject. Rarely are things "Sancrosanct", even in the scientific realm.

Do not misundertand my point, I'm not claiming Hancock is some "all knowing seer". He rejects that idea himself when some of his more adoring adherents attempt to suggest it.
His is an inquisitive mind, backed up by a resonable amount of field research. (not in all cases), but it is an unquestioned fact that most of what he proposes is based on a different interpretation of field work done by others.

My particular interest in Hancock has more to do with the Taurid meteor stream that our planet passes through twice a year, and his theories about that, The Mega Fauna Extinction of the Younger Dryas (why it happened) and of course the possible interconnection of ancient human societies in the deep past.
(10,000 BC and older).

 

I am not aware that Hancock acknowledges "aliens" in any of his work. He does strongly believe that a more sophisticated "stone working" technological civilization did exist that spread certain "stone working" technologies around the world prior to it's "dissolution".

 

Hancock does not believe or ascribe to any "alien" beliefs that I am aware of.

Chariots of the Gods - Erick von Danegan - Total Bullship (IMO).
Same as Emmanuael Vilakovski (Planets in Collision)

Here is the problem with pseudo scientists: They are like Faux news entertainers. They could care less with content - They are selling you something, they are less concerned with facts than money.

Regrettably this is a major problem with academia too.

You have a theory, you write a book or do a podcast on it........it establishes ones reputation and makes you money. People are LOATH to admit when they or their ideas are wrong, espcially when they are making BANK on it, should more compelling facts come out disproving it.

Human nature really.

 

Nor do I, nor have I ever heard anyone accuse Hancock of such. In fact, he is as far away from a white supremicist as one can get as far as I know.

As far as my own opinion about it, I am working hard to clone some of Hitlers DNA off a Nazi party tea cup that my Uncle recovered at the "Eagles Lair" and hope to finish my clone off soon so we can get a real "Republican" to run for President.

 

The history and discovery channel have turned into nothing but clickbait. Smdh. Now podDcocs ruin the world

And clearly Atlantis, duh

 

I'm sure that's on purpose as people can fill in the blanks with whatever they want behind things, which amounts to some kind of higher or more intelligent power

 

The OP mentioned white supremacy.

 

I saw that. I wasn't sure what dd's post meant.

 

This is basically white Hotep-ery (don't make me explain that)

 

I have become increasingly more interested in Megalithic Structures. I recently watched a documentary film from the British isles that details all the megaliths in the isles.

I was absolutely stunned.

I had no IDEA the ancients had committed so much time and effort to building so many structures. it was a 3 hour documentary that covered Ireland, Wales, England and Scotland.

It's unreal just how much stone working was done. Stonehenge is just a drop in the bucket compared to all the thousands of different megalithic structures put up over the millenia.

 

well, he seemed to suggest alien support to me anyways.

 

I'll try to give a shot this weekend, since most of our locals don't like it, it might be worth checking out

 

Very frustrated. Thought I was uniquely clever above referring to him railing against "big archaeology". I agree it was silly and absurd

I watched all eight episodes of the Netflix ‘docuseries’ Ancient Apocalypse, so you don’t have to. The series is hosted by Graham Hancock, who’s been on a mission for decades to disrupt “big archaeology” (as someone with a master’s degree in archaeology and who worked in the field for a few years, the idea of “big archaeology” makes me literally laugh out loud) and their supposed power, which he posits has been used to suppress his important findings about the existence of some kind of lost, ancient advanced civilization of the Ice Age that was nearly wiped out by a cataclysmic cosmic (meteor) event 12,000 years ago and whose few survivors worked their way around the world to teach later communities their wise ways.

 

That sounds dumb. Even if there were unrecorded ancient civilizations and the people living in them were fair skinned, that has nothing to do with white supremacy. Those people, regardless of their relative skin tone at the time, were not the white people of today. We don’t know for certain, but Neanderthals were probably fair skinned, and they were an entirely different species of human, not just another kind of white people.

Setting aside racial BS and looking at the matter biologically, fair skin provides one advantage. Just one. It more efficiently synthesizes Vitamin D from sunlight. So people with fair skin who lived in northern latitudes during the Ice Age grew up more healthy in that particular environment.

So for the sake of argument, let’s say Ice Age civilization did exist. It’s not implausible they were fair-skinned given that advantage in conditions with less sunlight. But nobody today should infer anything from that, good or bad, that reflects on white people today. They would have been an entirely different race of humans than those who walk around today. Even 2,000 years ago, the people of the earth would probably look unrecognizable in terms of race to modern humans. And we are talking closer to 10,000 to 40,000 years ago in this scenario.

 

Nope. You ne

He seemed to be confused by the 2nd post. I wasnt sure if he saw it in the OP.

 

This series will likely put him smack dab in the Conspiracy Theorist Toilet Bowl where they all end up after getting some run, in which they themselves are named the conspirators by even more ambitious conspiracy peddlers.

I hope Netflix has the backbone to follow this down the obvious path and season 2 is about how he is a “shill” and “controlled opposition”, with the same level of evidence to support those claims.

Then S3 takes down S2, and it never stops. This has the potential to be Best Ever if Netflix will simply do the right thing.