Los apocalipsis del pasado

Is wrong.

Some of you here claim Hancock "has no proof" - yet Gobekli Tepe is scientifically proven - not by Hancock - to be as old, as he claims it to be. Google the site and see what age you can find.

Once again - Gobekli and Karahan Tepe are indeed around 11-12 thousand years old (- which is universally agreed at this point), then everything they ever taught us about our ancient history is simply wrong.

Imagine, we have suddenly discovered some new information - just like some started to claim a few hundred years ago, that Earth isn't flat or that the sun doesn't orbit around Earth - people who claimed this, were burned alive, because scientists of that time "knew better". Now we all (well most of us) agree with this as a fact. In a few decades, all the kids will know about Gobekli Tepe and hopefully many other places yet to be discovered and it will be accepted.

You can't have it both ways - there was this joke about an old man at the zoo, looking at a giraffe all day long. Giraffe was walking around, chewing on the leaves, resting. The man was just shaking his head. They were closing up for the day and asked the man to leave. As he was leaving, he said "that animal you have there cannot possibly exist, it just makes no sense..", he walked away still shaking his head.

I was on Malta in 1997, visited most of the megalithic sites - they told us, "these are the oldest man made structures in the world" - well, and they were wrong. (Unless they are not 5-6 thousand years old - as they thought, but are also 11 thousand + years old - in which case, the scientists were very wrong still - wrong at establishing the real construction date). In 1997, it was universally believed, that it was a fact. Gobekli Tepe was only discovered/serious digs started in 94/95, it took a few years to determine the actual age.

Graham Hancock dares to ask questions.

He dares to say (and I am paraphrasing) "well, if Gobekli Tepe is admittedly this old - you have to admit, you were wrong about our history. Our ancestors from that era obviously weren't nearly as primitive, as you claim. What else did you get wrong? What else do you claim, although you have no proof for whatsoever? Let's investigate, let's study, let's talk about it"

The self assured, but very obviously mistaken historians and archaeologists: "no, you're a pseudo-scientist"

Oh, OK then...

There's no way, they were building such structures, while being just hunters and gatherers - although that's what these series also claim.

Why and how would you build all that, while having no certainty, that you can have enough food in the surrounding area? Unless you can grow your own food and raise your own animals, you'd never do that - unless it was some "garden of eden", with nothing but endless supply of food growing and running around.

But anyway, let's imagine for a while, that a huge cataclysm destroys most of the world in the next few days. You survive, a few thousand people around the world survive, but no technology survives. No internet. Most roads are gone, no electricity, no running water, no medical care..

...then some brainiac 20 thousand years from now asks - "so, if those people did exist and were not primitive, were are their houses? Where's their rubbish" - well, my friend, it's overgrown, under the sea, disintegrated - did you really expect your particular timber, or brick house will survive 10- 20 thousand years? After a cataclysm? Think about it. Look at a 100 year old abandoned shed. Now imagine it in 5 thousand years, 10 thousand years. What is it going to look like? All the huge pyramids in Mexico were overgrown - it only took a few hundreds of years of neglect, it all became a jungle.

You know what could possibly survive all that? - such as a huge cataclysm and possibly ten thousand + years of climate change, vegetation grow, nature taking over in general? - A huge, megalithic structure, ideally burried under ground..like Gobekli Tepe and others.

Is Graham Hancock right about everything? No, he doesn't have to be.

And remember one more thing, while you're reading this and clicking thumbs down on my comment, on this wonderful website.. somewhere in a remote jungle, there's a small slender guy, chasing some squirrel sized animal with a spear or a blowgun, which is the most advanced piece of technology, that he ever held in his possession. You and this little savage guy can live at the same time, living totally different lives, a few thousand km from each other. His people will live like that for another bunch of thousands of years, unless we interfere with their lifestyle.

In 2024, you still have modern people and primitive savages living "side by side"..if you have these savages living in stone age conditions today in Amazon jungle, how can anyone in their right mind claim, that it wasn't like that also 12 thousand or more years ago?

Those Amazon rainforest tribes could never build their own Gobekli Tepe today and they would never ever try, it would never occur to them - "hey, let's build this huge, megalithic structure..". Maybe in a few thousand or tens of thousands of years they eventually would. Those people are the hunters and gatherers.

Builders of Gobekli Tepe were obviously far ahead of that. So you want a proof - other, than it's scientifically proven, that these sites are that old? Here's your proof - today's hunter and gatherers have built nothing but some primitive shacks. And it's 2024.

This held my attention pretty well. I thought it was a bit overly rhetorical at parts and that the editing of (most of) his interviews with field experts or "buffs" (his term) really zeroed in on whatever sound bits propagated his precise message, otherwise ignoring most of what they might've contributed.

Some of the reviews here state that he offered no "proof" of a prehistoric advanced civilization, and that pyramids, stone temples and such are not "advanced". On the contrary, the point he's trying to argue is that a global cataclysm would've wiped out all traces of any prehistoric advanced people, and that if there are traces, they may exist in places we haven't looked or been willing to look (which he gives examples of). He's arguing that, in fact, the scale of construction endeavors (megaliths, pyramids, subterranean structures), and the astronomical designs/orientations seen in them are advanced enough to suggest a level of knowledge and sophistication that could only have been passed down from earlier humans, thus indicating that they must've been constructed at more of a resource, technology, and population 'reset' than the beginning of human life as we know it. In other words, the primitive hunter-gatherer groups that archaeologists currently believe were the earliest humans couldn't have just up & created these structures, all at around the same time--nor would they have had any reason to unless motivated by stories of fear & suffering from an apocalypse.

He dumps on archaeologists a lot, but seems to offer some reasonable explanations for it: he says they discount theories while refusing to look into them; that they refuse to excavate certain places; that they are not motivated to correct people's understanding of history even as new science proves old science to be incorrect.

I can see that, to be honest. It's not that I know much about archaeology specifically, but it is a field wrapped in academia, which comes with all sorts of funding, political, and bureaucratic issues, all while the people involved are necessarily as passionate about furthering their own careers (and maybe supporting themselves) as they might be about furthering human knowledge. Ideas/projects that get funding are often within the comfort zones of various interconnected institutions, following ever similar paths, expanding on existing ideas, etc. This kind of thing exists all over academia. Look up Drs. Karikó and Weismann re: how long it took to get funding for mRNA vaccine research, for example.

I'm gonna find myself some popcorn and look forward to hearing/reading any archaeology community response to this.

Hancock leads us on a nice and tidy path of his research and field of interest during the past decades, and gives us an compelling theory of lost civilizations due to global cataclysm.

Critics of this documentary series seem to dislike Hancock for his rejection of consensus in fields like archeology and geology, or dislike Hancock for being arrogant and bitter (in rather arrogant and bitter wording themselves).

Personally I find the theory well substantiated, enough to warrant more interest and research. I'm filled with a burning desire to see more of the submerged structures, and to excavate areas that have only been found via LiDAR scanning.

If you'd like to dip your toe into some groundbreaking theories relating to ancient civilizations, and the possible reasons for so little remaining for us to find, this is an excellent start.

This isn't a very well made show at all. It feels like something they made for a NatGeo show back in the 2000s but much less factual. The amount of slow-motion, pan-over drone shots of the worksite and Graham Hancock power-posing seem to outnumber the frames that actually meaningfully push the content forward.

Essentially the show continuously presents archaeological evidence that refutes the typical timeline of human history, which Hancock insists must be because of this advanced ancient civilization we've lost contact with. There's no evidence though of these mystical capabilities.

It genuinely feels like Graham Hancock is just showing up to various active archeological sites with a film crew, asking the workers questions, and then splicing out the parts of the interview that may further the ongoing narrative. I'm not convinced that the archaeologists presenting their findings are doing so in support of his theory, they're just having individual frames of content being mined out of interviews and interaction.

Why is this concerning? It's a film that has been made professionally enough to be called documentary even though it's not factual. Someone who doesn't really have a whole lot of attachment to the issue would probably entertain this as a factual documentary without looking too critically at it. And someone who is a genuine conspiracy theorist would allow this to feedback into their disbelief in genuine science anyway.

Could go on on, but I'll stop here.

If his motivation for making this film was merely asking questions about natural phenomenons & seemingly, forgotten landmarks, then this show has some defining moments. I do feel like he throws around a lot of dates, and treats thousands of years very loosely in his episodes, but his David Attenborough oration made this show more entertaining. The music & zoomed in angles made some moments a little overdramatic, which disconnected our thoughts from the story. Was the show thought provoking, yes, was is it entirely factually supported, no. This show has created many good questions & raised some interesting hypotheses. Why does a show like this create an apocalypse of his own, an a apocalypse of vitriol. His ideas are interesting, and this creates more investigations in to these suggestions. One thing we know, is those sites exist, and the monoliths and sites are old, so someone must have built them with more knowledge then clubs & loin clothes. This is indeed a thought provoking show, but remember, he is still throwing out ideas. If anything, this show has an entertainment value, but if this show doesn't provide accuracy to the ancient culture of forgotten history, then at least the show has shed some light on the current academic narrow mindedness of ancient history already has been answered. Whether you agreed with his viewpoint or not, we can see how this show has created interesting conversations & intriguing further study.