Los apocalipsis del pasado

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.

This Netflix series will either inspire or attract ridicule. I don't think there will be much in-between.

If I were to shape my world view exclusively based on peer-reviewed pieces of science I would live in the most dull, meaningless and senseless world possible.

When I acknowledge that I don't know about something, I love some fresh perspectives which let me evaluate based on at least something so banal as what probability could this have?

If your conclusion is that the probability of what's presented is next to non-existent then this mini-series is not for you.

If you, even if you didn't understand why but seemed to relate, however unexplainable, to something about this series, I can highly recommend it.

I gave Michael Polland's mini-series, How To Change Your Mind, a 10 because it communicated from the heart, from the beginning to the end.

I'll give this an 8 because how much it can engage your mind, if you let it.

But the Spartan 300 trailer soundtrack and ultra-dramatic narration maybe expressed the creator's enthusiasm and sense of urgency more than analyzing what people will relate to.

Regardless, I believe this series will be a starting point of a massive movement of questioning our past, and to be fair, that was its intention all along 😊I don't think it is meant to convince, but meant to make you try on a wider perspective.

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.

'Ancient Apocalypse' is an often confused, and generally arrogant, attempt to sensationalize history through one person's insistence of a rather ridiculous idea, and his desire to pick a fight with archaeologists, historians, and scientists.

Graham Hancock insists, on the one hand, how archaeologists and scientists all around the world have locked themselves into this one idea of human history, and are unwilling to change their perspective in light of new archaeological evidence.

On the other hand, he takes all the evidence, the myths and legends of diverse cultures, and any facts, hints, and suggestions he can find, and twists them all to fit into his own idea of an incredibly advanced, forgotten ancient civilization while doing exactly what he constantly accuses academics of doing: not being willing to accept anything which defies their own perception.

He has visited some amazing places, found some fascinating links between separate cultures across history, and maybe even come up with a few half-decent ideas about why we need to continue extensive research into our past to better understand our ancient ancestors.

However, the biggest conclusion he has drawn is largely nonsensical. The way he keeps implying ancient humans could not have progressed as they did, to discover agriculture and build large monuments and structures, without the help of some advanced civilization forgotten by history is plain arrogant, insulting, extremely annoying, and rather hypocritical given he accuses archaeologists of the very same arrogance he displays himself.

Having read both the scholarly papers for archaeological sites as well as Graham's books over the last few decades, they both seem to be at war with each other. While thought provoking, vivid, and beautifully filmed, this documentary falls short on what could have been a great response to "big archaeology" by Graham.

His theories are beginning to gain steam. However, I can't help but wonder how many of the individuals he interviews (including himself) are victims to selection bias. Some of his speculations brought forth in the episode (specifically the Sirius one) seem so far-fetched that it often feels like he's drawing conclusions from nothing. I was hoping this documentary would be more detailed. Unfortunately, it is very clear it was made for entertainment instead of data. I hope, if one is green-lit, a sophomore effort will be more detailed, both for our sake and for Graham's sake. I think it would benefit the masses and academia alike to consider non-mainstream ideas. My final thought-Archaeologists require massive funding for monumental projects- just food for thought on how money (and who owns it) can control a narrative. Graham's work here aims to poke holes in that narrative.