It's clearly there to underscore the need of any society for such implements. This exact spoon will be dug up 10,000 years from now and used to make hypotheses about our culture and lifestyle. How did Atlanteans eat soup or record their youtube videos?
debates are entrirely performative. you rarely see scientists debating because the research should speak for itself, and hancocks research is worth less than dogshit
I bet there are hundreds of archaeologists who would love to square up to the old fraud, so if they are serious about it there would be no problem. But don't hold your breath. There is not a chance in Hell that old Hancock would debate any real archaeologist, he hasn't got the guts. And don't mention Zahi Hawass, that was never even meant to be a debate.
Graham makes quite the claim, which makes a series of profitable books. And therein lies the rub. L. Ron Hubbard is another example of a guy making wild claims, whilst selling profitable books, and gaining a legion of hapless disciples in the process.
What are you people on? How does something logical based of findings and research compare to a guy who makes believe aliens flew into a volcano to create life? 😂😂😂
@@helygg8892 If you think that Hancocks claims are logical then you really don't know much about archeology and/or scientific thinking. And apparently you haven't looked at the many claims Hancock has made and the dishonesty he has been caught with. Maybe you want to watch a video called "TV tricks of the trade - Quotes and cutaways". There's an interesting bit about Hancock at the end, which reveals how he's willing to dishonestly edit interviews to make people say the opposite of what they actually said. How can you trust such a person to give you the full picture or even honestly report what scientists are saying?
And he keeps asking “Where are the cities that this civilization has built?” After just 1000 years, there won’t be any trace of Stephan’s house or shed. That plastic spoon is the sturdiest material we see in his yard. Maybe these ancient people had homes just like Stephan? ;0)
When the truth is far less exciting than Atlantean extraterrestrials, funding doesn't come flooding in, and Rogan couldn't get as many suckers to lap it up.
Your point about staple crop distribution is fantastic. In fact, the whole video is the best, most succinct, rebuttal to Hancock/the pre-Younger Dryas civilization premise that I’ve seen.
@@DaneuwillNah the aliens gave everyone tomato but not everyone liked them so they never bothered to grow them. Duh. Plus it was too cold in some climates. Duh. And there was a big war about how to pronounce tomato which wiped a lot of tomatos out in some regions. Duh. Hancock logic. Pseudoscience is the best science.
I still think there’s a reasonable degree of doubt that would allow us to hypothesize that the Neolithic period and the implementation of agriculture may have happened much earlier into the ice age and in a different manner than we currently perceive. There are many studies being conducted on suitable and extreme growing conditions of various plant species and how different environmental and biological factors could affect the vegetative growth and production of crops. I personally maintain my own hypothesis that humanity had surpassed hunting and gathering long before the beginning of the Neolithic we put at around 12,000 years ago. I in no way agree with graham that there was a globe spanning ancient pre-younger dryas civilization but I do think that there’s a lot more to humanity’s history with agronomy.
No, it was because all the psychic refrigerators were off in space. You have to understand, they knew they'd want tomato's 'tomorrow' it's just that their transcendent view of time means that 'tomorrow' is on the universe scale of time. /s
Sagan was into aliens and pot. It is possible to entertain ideas without believing them. Listen a bit to Hancock, apart from some slips of the tongue, the man is careful in affirming anything. As Milo says, he keeps saying that the connecting of the dots seem to point in one direction, which is his belief system. In my opinion Hancock presents plenty of evidence that should make one more ooen minded about what we know of the past.
I think his other quote holds true as well "Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence". But I think his first quote is more appropriate. For example just because we haven't found Sassquatch, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but to prove it does exist means we need evidence that shows humanoid DNA that matches no known extant hominoid. Surprisingly we do have such extraordinary findings recently from hair samples. Humanoid DNA that matches no known great ape nor human relative, now living.
Corrupt, self-interested mainstream science makes all kinda of extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. Sometimes without any real evidence at all. Therefore, I find the mainstream hypocritical and unworthy to set the standard or guidelines by which other scientists must abide.
My "favorite" thing about Hancock and his fans is that theyll take simple critques from experts in the field as scathing personal attacks. If someone is going to make assertions about something in any field (and this is what he does. He doesnt 'just ask questions' or only report on what he finds. He asserts that "mainstream history" is wrong) than anyone, regardless of standing in that area should expect and welcome critques. But instead they take being told their wrong as an insult/attack and completely throw out over a hundred years science to bolster their agrument.
He also makes out any rebuttal is just Big Archaeology trying to hide the truth from us and can therefore be ignored. The idea of archaeologists being some conspiracy network is pretty funny to me.
They never critique him though. They just throw out words like "pseudo-scientist" but never explain WHY he is wrong. I'm not saying that he is right but I have no respect for those guys. I hate "spirituality" though, and I don't think Hancock is right about anything.
@@AlexH8280 That's your opinion, and if you hate the experts, you are welcome to study the field and gain a proper grounding to combat the experts. Archaeologists want to be wrong; we want to be corrected, but we need good scholarship for us to accept the claims. Be the change you want to see in the world. If you can't do that and would rather just call us "smug douchebags" then go right ahead, just don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
To be fair. I always assumed Hancock was suggesting an interesting thought experiment on if civilisation could be older than what we currently accept. Given the Gobekli Tepi find, then it's an interesting question. I don't ever remembering him pushing this as some kind of established fact , but again I've always viewed as I said. An interesting thought exercise.
Yeah, he's got some really basic stuff that's solid, then he likes to wildly speculate based on relatively certain things that the "mainstream" hasn't taken into account in popular narratives
his views are def painted in a negative light because it highlights the shortcomings of history and archaeology. How advanced these potential former civilizations were, is unknown. But I think most of us followers of Hancock don’t assume they had high speed internet and flying cars
@@tomzzo There is zero evidence for Hancocks ancient empire. No skeletons, no tools, no genetic markers in modern populations. But we are able to find simple firepits dated 300 000 years old.
@donwharrison What is your view on Schoch's sphinx water erosion hypothesis? It's one of the most used "evidence" by the alternative community. I have a background in history/archaeology and it's really amusing to look at all the false information these "alternative researchers" are showing, but I have no training in geology so I can't elaborate on that subject.
He has at least one interview with Joe Rogan where he is pushing clearly coocoo ideas as "facts not yet embraced by the mainstream". It is entirely possible that certain things about human civilization or homo sapiens are older than we thought. Possibly not "significantly" (meaning on a geological timescale) older, but older. Give or take a couple of centuries or milennia. Example: for a long time it was thought that homo sapiens appeared 100.000 years ago. Then that was pushed out to 200.000. Now we have 300.000 year old fossils from North Africa.
Accents are funny like that since even people with PhD's from the american south get treated like they're idiots but crazy people with Received Pronunciation are viewed as an authority worth listening too. A man with a PhD in physics would be viewed with skepticism if he had a Cajun or Arkansas accent while you could have a guy talk about ancient aliens and so long as he spoke the Queens English you'd at least be tempted to hear him out when he starts talking about alien cats teaching Egyptians how to build pyramids.
Got turned onto you through tigerstar. Same with this channel I think, actually. Thanks for making the content you do. There’s only one problem with it- I always want to go read the sources, adding more to my reading backlog. Your references lists are fantastic, and I appreciate you so much for that.
I have been fascinated by Hancock’s stories since forever. I really enjoy reading his novels. But he does the classic “we don’t know so therefor I can make up anything that sounds cool” fallacy. I don’t know what made that weird thud sound at night, so instead of accepting that or looking for evidence I get to make up a story about haunting ghosts and how the elite are keeping it a secret and controlling our memories through genetically modified food which is all kept secret by people with “incentives”. We don’t know every fact about the world so therefor I get to make up a story and if you don’t agree you are just “closed off” or part of some conspiracy to suppress the truth. It is all just after the fact justification. And that is what it is, a cool story. It is a sublime theme, faint distant memories of great past completely destroyed by unimaginable terror. Beauty, horror and delight. Would make a great novel.
@@bobnewton1064 To be honest I was kinda underwhelmed. To me the leap from “look at all these amazing and puzzling old structures” to “this points to a prehistoric civilization” is way too big.
@@bobnewton1064 he spends half the time in his series attempting to convince the viewer that mainstream archeology is covering everything up. That they refuse to look at good evidence. I suppose that is easy to believe when you've never taken much time to learn about what archaeologists actually do.
@@JesusChrist8451 -- I imagine he means the exact same as the scientific method; That any historical theory looking to be passed as historical fact withstands the scrutiny, testability and research of his peers. In science, nothing is cleared unless it can be repeated. I suppose the only difference with history is that not all historians and archeologists enter the field with the same scientific backgrounds, and thus interpretation is a far more serious problem. For example, any historian looking to be validated in their understanding of history only needs to find other historians with their exact background and through sheer numbers can insist what is historical fact. It's a far more political arena than science, and therefore the methodology for determining what is and isn't true is far less accurate. As an outsider, though, I would think any wise historian or archeologist trying to get to the bottom of something would at least lean on process of elimination to determine which theories are not true -- even if you can't pinpoint the exact theory or timetable that is. This is where I side heavily with Graham Hancock in his research, as he's already proven that historical consensus on some subjects is absolutely not true... And even with proof is not taken seriously. That has a lot to do with why many think that everything he proposes is true. The average person may not know anything about history or about dating organic materials, but they know when someone seems honest, and, compared to most archeologists and historians, Graham Hancock most certainly wins the Appearance of Integrity battle.
@@rickycouture7224 sad but true, I’ve noticed there are far too many examples of Indians Jones wannabes out there in the field of archeology and too many political hacks in the field of history. Archeology should be more than glorified grave robbing, and history should ALWAYS remain objective, but that’s easier said than done when we add humans to the equation, too many possible variables to try and get a consistent solution. Science is really good as an academic field because everything is meticulously methodical. Things have to be proven again and again for it to be seen as a truth, but when dealing with the unknown mysteries of our past there’s no real overarching structure to define how discoveries are made. Not to say the entire batch is spoiled by a few rotten apples, but those bad experiences and examples can easily cast the whole field into question unfortunately.
i love the history of the earth and humans since freshman yr of college. i wtached grahams recent netflix series all the way thru and planned on doing research of my own becuase 1. i thought it was fugazzi but he seemed to make decent sense of it 2. im the last thing from an archeologist (accountant) and figured there was someone who could debunk his theories with better background than myself and pretty obbvious objections. case in point this video. i love things like this, were if i didnt know better to fact check graham, i would believe or be open to his ideas. but folk like you help me see the other things he chooses to ignore
@@kettelbe that's what baffles me the most sometimes these days, many ppl don't seem to even ask about ppl's scientific background or motives anymore, it's just like, if a theory sounds the smallest bit interesting and believable, it's fair play to lots of folks out there...
@@mowgli8945 Shits scary. And before the internet, before these gullible mouth breathers had a chance to assimilate fellow likeminded smooth brains, these dumb fucks would’ve been relegated to the stool in the back corner of the classroom with a dunce cap on. And before that, involuntarily admitted to the psych ward in a straight jacket. And before that, thrown off a cliff with a broom between their legs to see if they would fly away. And before that, forced into a pillory in the middle of town, with their beliefs plastered to the front for all the townspeople to read and laugh at while throwing tomatoes at them. The fuckin internet bro… I love it and I hate it.
This series would be perfect also for the "History" Channel, its great storytelling without a single ounce of hard evidence. "IF this happened and IF this happened its safe to assume THIS happened" sure but there's no hard evidence IT did happen.
The major recent source of Graham Hancock's recent influence is his interviews on Joe Rogan's online show. Unfortunately, Rogan has a lot of subscribers and has a lot of influence. His last interview with Hancock got over 8 million views. The scientific world better start adapting and going on shows like his and refuting Hancock's claims otherwise the general public will continue to be misled. Stefan does a good job in this video, but he has 43K subscribers and Rogan has nearly 9 million.
@@IndependentThinker74 unfortunately academics tend to be about 30 years behind the public information arms race, and considering how old and popular books like Chariots of the Gods are this has been this way for half a century or more minimum
When we learned about history in school, especially the different ages like copper, bronze, iron etc, it was like a clear limitation to what could be done with in example copper and bronze and when we came to iron it was much better and created fantastic work by humans. And then when we came to the copper age and the teacher with a small smile on the face said: in the copper age we built these Great Pyramids" litterary half the class laughed. It makes zero sense what so ever even to a child. Our teacher claimed we would figure it out when archaeologist dig deeper. This was 30 years ago and almost nothing has changed. The Sphinx, the Sphinx temple, the Great Pyramids, the Karnak temple and so much more are accredited to a copper aged civilization. The reason the Sphinx are dated to 4500 years old, is because it`s the oldest we knew back then. Now we know about Gobekli Tepe wich is 12.000 year old. If humans could create the Gobekli Tepe 8-12.000 years ago, they could also have created the Sphinx much earlier than 4500 years ago. So to only trust what you are teached, and not seek further information is not good either, it`s important to think about several aspects as new information become available with the passage of time.
Came here after watching the Netflix show. Some red flags that were raised for me as a layman: 1. Most of the discoveries and data Hancock relies upon were collected by the very people he tells us not to trust--the archaeologists. 2. If there were compelling evidence of an older civilization, isn't it the ARCHAEOLOGISTS who would be tripping over each other to find proof? It's not a cult, it's a profession, and people get into it because this kind of thing excites them, and they want to be part of a major discovery. 3. Hancock has the entire story laid out in his mind about exactly what happened, and that's not how science is supposed to work. If he simply said "civilization might be older than we think" and left it at that, he'd actually have a point. 4. The "evidence," while perhaps compelling on a case-by-case basis, is strung together haphazardly to fit his preconceived narrative. No other possibilities are seriously considered. It's like your toilet flushing in the next room and immediately assuming it's a ghost. 4. Does he have something to gain from promoting his theories? Yes. Does he have something to lose if proven wrong? Not really. In conclusion, Hancock is selling us a tantalizing story (and probably making good money from it). He's not a scientist, so he doesn't risk his career by doing so. The "orthodoxy is bad, keep an open mind" argument is not evidence. It proves nothing.
#1 is the main reason I truly detest Hancock. It takes a special kind of con artist &sshole to demonise the very people whose work makes your cons possible. I've said it before and I'll say it again, he has zero moral center - he will say whatever keeps those sweet greenbacks flowing in his direction.
"Hancock has the entire story laid out in his mind about exactly what happened, and that's not how science is supposed to work" This is also exactly what he claims academia are doing with their "dogmatic views" on the subject. He basically projects everything bad he is doing onto archaeologists. One of these days some of his mega fans are going to attack those hardworking archaeologists and he wont care one bit.
What a pile of about nonsense, Hancock visits sites that archaeologists can’t properly explain. He has ever reason to distrust them given their behaviour to him and themselves of the last 35 years. You should look at how many careers have been ruined by archaeologists refusal to accept or investigate new evidence. Yes he does have a story laid out in his head he is a journalist offering an alternative point of view by collecting information that science can’t explain. He does consider other possibilities but the evidence at these sites generally doesn’t fit the mainstream narrative so he challenges it. You then get clowns like Milo who tell us Hancock is wrong but don’t offer any form of explanation for the sites they just throw a load of theory out there and pretend it’s the answer.
@@LovedByDax well that would go against every scientific theory ever told then wouldn’t it. There have been a multitude of scientific theories published over the years, how many of Einstein’s theories did he publish?? Your statement is shambolic at best.
Hancock indirectly and serendipitously sent thousands to your channel. Your well sourced and to the point rebuttal has converted many inquisitive archeological laypersons who came across Hancock's incredible hypothesis (me for one). I'm sharing with everyone I discussed Hancock with and have bookmarked this episode for instant rebuttal.
@@safarit678 I'm not your buddy, guy. I'm not your guy, friend. I'm not your friend, buddy. Do you believe Hancock is correct or do you believe this guy? I like that this guy presents all the different knowledge, theories and possibilities that we know of and gives us an idea of how much support there is for each view and evidence as well as limitations. It seems honest. I know nothing of Hancock but a quick Google makes it seem that he's not so keen on being completely honest but instead tries to put forward an idea he has of the world and only provides the evidence to support his view instead of being honest and providing all of the evidence even if that goes against his personal position. Do you follow the evidence wherever it leads or do you prefer to have a guy who's a stoner for decades and doesn't follow the evidence?
Except for the part that underwater archaeology has not mapped the bottom of the Mediterranean (look at the search for Alexandria), and the crops? They're all in South America.
Graham Hancock had such a huge potential to be an amazing fantasy and historical fiction writer. It's a wasted talent to be honest - he is a creative guy afterall.
He is a fiction writer and he knows it He just puts on and act of being a revolutionary thinker fighting "big science" to boost his book sales by marketing to losers who think they're smarter than everyone.
it's basically what he is but he's tapped into the a larhe swath of the population that feel better blaming "mainstream" scientist and historians for their ignorance
It feels like GH made an interesting plot for a story and tried to shoehorn it into human history whichever way he could, “oh they don’t have tools… oh I mean of course they didn’t have tools! They were so smart.. that-that they didn’t need tools!!!” “New unexplained archeological find? You mean the denisovans?.. or should I say, Atlanteans?😮”
@@MegaDixen We’ve found wooden shipwrecks in the Mediterranean dated to the Late Bronze Age (or about 1,300 BCE). Animal bones and tools have been found in the North Sea dating back thousands of years to the time that the British Isles were connected to mainland Europe. One such find I can recall is the bones of a Homotherium dated to around 28,000 years ago.
@@MegaDixenso whose to say it wasn’t just Bigfoot instead of this Atlantis theory, all since GH sources are pseudoscientists, outdated, or maps from when most continents already looked distorted. It’s an interesting idea on paper but if it can’t hold up to a modicum of criticism, doesn’t it tell you the wools been pulled over your eyes? Do I believe that humans 20,000 years ago were once advanced? Absolutely, you’d be a fool not to. Do I believe there had to be telekinetic Atlanteans who traveled the earth to teach people about the world just because they wanted to? No. Thats ridiculous. Maybe instead of just taking what GH says at face value, actually look at where he gets his information from. Whose to say, I don’t know, left to our own devices for long enough, intelligence breeds progress? Is it so crazy to believe early humans were just more capable then we believe, that instead there’s actual credibility in fantasy story. A story whose writer is embarrassingly upset while his little theory isn’t taken seriously while also explaining why no one will ever find anything about them. The burden of proof has always been on GH and despite his best efforts, he’s only convinced those who aren’t willing to think for themselves.
Was trippin on lsd watching grahams latest netflix series and I thought it was quite thought provoking but something was definately off.. still trippin but doing my research for the truth from real archeologist and the real Human story is even more amazing than what Hancock suggest imo. Mind=blown Atleast he has gotten me interested in archeology at all And I applaud Hancock for that atleast.
Real archeologists who are they?? Do you mean those people that proclaim this is how history went only for that to be wrong and then spend the next 30 years stopping science moving forward because they can’t admit they were wrong
@Bingobanana How did you extract 'knows the entirety of human history' from the comment above. Clearly the comment is expressing that Hancock's little assertions and appeals to some mysterious fairy-tale people aren't a match for the very human, and very real things we do know about myriad cultural and societal progressions, structures, and histories.
@@Petticca I didn’t extract ‘knows the entirety of human history’ from the comment. I stated the real human story which is what was said in the comment above. You can twist what someone says to suit your own narrative all you want but it makes you look rather pathetic that you can’t read correctly
The best thing about outlandish theories, such as flat earth theory, is that it gives common people the incentive to learn in order to disprove their claims.
Would that it were... I find it more often makes people just not want to Get involved... whatever it is. Easier to let someone else handle the hostility... Hancock mechanism is an impish projection, “mommy, the big boys are picking on me...“ it is how he has built his following, ‘Victimhood.”
@@tomzzo I suppose if you do enough hallucinogens then Hancock seems plausible... otherwise it just shows profound gullibility, if you buy such pretentious made-up crap.
Nobody has the chops to debate Carlson on that issue. Overwhelming proof of an almost incomprehensible level of destruction. Easily capable of erasing any and all signs of anything and anyone unfortunate enough to be within range. Not to mention the aftermath and chaos of surviving.
Considering the response by devotees of his shite it appears = he has......... - as they react as cretards/flerfs do when their silly claims are challenged 🤨
It's kind of crazy to think how different the geography was during the last ice age and that humans were around to see it. Japan and Britain were a peninsula, Indonesia was part of Southeast Asia, and Eurasia and North America were connected.
My thought about Doggerland. Up to some point ~ 7000 years ago, give or take, there must have been the lowest point between europe the continent, and what is now the UK. So as the sea rose, at the high tide on some particularly day, the waters on each side of that lowest point, must have met for the first time in human memory. It would have only been brief, but significant none the less. Do you suppose there were some humans there to see that moment? And if they did, how did the conversation go? Something like: "Not sure what's going to happen here, but it certainly does not look good". In the contemporaneous vernacular. The other point which one would think was quite obvious but seems to have escaped the attention of a large part of the terrified modern population: YES, humanity can actually survive large rises in sea level.
I've listened with interest to Hancock be interviewed, many times. I came away from them thinking he's had too much Ayawauska, and far too much reefer. I just want to say "consider" the age of planet earth. Can you wrap your head around a billion years? A million? I know I can't. According to geologists today, we've had 6 or 7 extinction events, in earth's history. Some of the evidence of those events were displayed in the patterns of days gone by as charcoal, cinders, and ash. These annihilations could have easily removed and destroyed all evidence of a civilization from a "Million" years back. Heat and entropy is destructive. Winds and Floods also contribute to the demise. Especially after a "million" earth years. Humans have through evolution, instincts. Intuition, and as yet undefined areas of consciousness, (sans drugs) and mental abilities, that in time may reveal more depth and power in humans that has been missing for centuries. To dismiss Hancock entirely is a miscalculation. He has opened the door to examining the earths long and storied past. We should react carefully.
@Sf Ski Thanks for that. I've seen pics of that cave drawing and didn't even focus on those stars. Wow. 2 million years ago? A star could have easily destructed. In my humble opinion
We would see evidence of a civilization SOMEWHERE. Lesser amounts of evidence of far less technologically developed civilizations have survived millennia, and so if an advanced ancient civilization existed, we’d know by now. Groundless pseudery
I am a fan of Mr Hancock and I stuck around. This is about my tenth video and I'm really loving this channel! You're convincing me. I was really having fun with the whole lost high technology thing. Thanks for ruining it. Lol. :). I guess its better to find out now after only believing in it a couple years. I've been looking for a channel to challenge these beliefs. Most of the stuff I find on you tube is pro Graham Hancock. I still want to believe some of it.
@@nicholaswoollhead6830 yep. Not many people want to put out the true facts even though I really think it’s just as amazing. Guess not as many would click on it though.
Just because most of GH’s claims can be debunked, doesn’t mean that all of them are false. What if civilization was older, just not so technologically advanced as he claims, for instance? There is lot of evidence about the Sphynx specifically that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s made by highly developed ancient civilization, just that it’s older than we think and that we don’t know anything about its true origins.
@@rayhoodoo847 I could believe maybe an older civilization existed without the high technology but the only thing that makes me think that isn’t possible is the crops. To have any kind of large civilization they would have to have had agriculture and I’ve been told we can trace all of our crops back to where and when they were first domesticated. Make sense? It’s hard for me to explain and I’m no scientist but when I heard about all that it seemed true.
This America "theory" is one extrapolation too far from nothing. But the first Hancock video I saw him diving on west coast of India to find a underwater city 75 m under water. This not so impossible at all, considering how much the sea level has risen during last 10,000 years. There are other interesting places like Gulf of Persia and the Black Sea. I am from Finland and I know the phases of the Baltic sea, there were four. Baltic Ice Lake, Yoldia Sea, Anchylus Lake and finally the Baltic Sea. This because of world ocean level rise and land rising. In the Black Sea there was first melting water flowing in the fresh water lake so that the lake that flowed to Mediterranean Sea. That flow ended in time , and when the lake was much under the world ocean something happened (earthquake) and the world ocean flowed in. Since that event under 100 m Black Sea us practically dead, SO2. In the deep of the Baltic Sea > 100 m it is the same. The depth of Persian Gulf is about 50 m, so before the big sea level rise it was above sea level. Not defending Hancock, but there is lot to find, lot to research when the sea level rise is accepted. The Persian Gulf, Black Sea and the west coast of India would be interesting areas. I am not an archaeologist, but perhaps a wannabe. Anyway thanks for your interesting and informative videos. Kippis.
That would have been 'Underworld', which is probably the closest Hancock has come to an academically rigorous study (which still isn't very close but ...). Interestingly he has said in interviews that it's the hardest he's worked on a project and the one he found the least enjoyable, which I think says a lot about his standards. I've got the book and it's a great read as well as being lavishly illustrated. He does still go way off beam when he starts waffling about latitude and/or longitude but his speculation about the potential for an ancient civilisation that got washed away is interesting. If you can lay your hands on a hardback copy of 'Underworld' cheaply or borrow it from your local library it is worth a read.
Yes there are cities lost to sea level around the world. However they are only developed to the extent to the time they were covered. None are more advanced than any other nearby surviving city.
@@wallyslow I've just checked Hancock's 'Underworld' book. He says that he took special courses and describes the equipment he used. However he also says the structures of the Indian coast were at a depth of 23 metres which is roughly 75 feet so my guess is that the OP is a misremembering of the units of measurement.
@@surfk9836 This is spot on SurfK9, the submerged cities off the Indian coast look to be no more advanced than the Indus Civilization in Pakistan, if not part of that continuum.
@@conner13.c16 who? I don't belive his more extreme beliefs, but I have an open mind about there being some advanced civilizations further back then we thought possible. And no I'm not talking about psychic pyramid building giants.
@@Gringogay I mean, Graham Hancock is wrong. But I agree with you about being open minded regarding the lost civilization topic, yet there are no carbon emotions recorded during the ice age so I am a bit skeptical about it
The problem with folks like Hancock isn't their basic notion, namely that it is likely that there are periods of human prehistory about which our current concepts are incomplete or incorrect. The problem comes from wild extrapolation of this basic notion. It is not unreasonable to think that during the last ice age an unknown culture or cultures possibly existed in areas that were inundated by rising sea levels at the end of the ice age. Cultures similar in technology to the Funnel Beaker culture, or Beaded Ware culture or perhaps even the Cucuteni-Trypillia culture might have existed and traded with one another during the last ice age. But to go from that to a globe spanning mother culture that spun off all the ancient civilizations is a huge leap.
Well exactly. Of course there’s so much about prehistory that we don’t know, or don’t understand well. But a society on the scale of the British empire is just too much, we have to be guided by the evidence, not our fantasies.
@@StefanMilo Exactly. It would be extremely interesting if Hancock's ideas were true - but it would also be extremely interesting to be able to hop aboard the Millennium Falcon and go for a spin. I have a feeling that both are equally likely. 😁
One would also expect to see some traces of their civilization further inland too, just like how there are a bunch of other ancient temples and cities located much further inland. Hancock’s theories rest upon the notion that this lost ancient civilization only existed along the coastlines, but why would that be the case when the fossil record shows a lot of large game further inland? Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, to which GH has none.
Ockham's razor. While his followers think the lack of evidence is the evidence of the civilization wiped out in the horribly painful and catastrophic event. Ockham's razor suggests an easier and far simpler explanation - there was no civilization in the first place! Case closed, next! ;)
@@StefanMilo I've seen this video before, then lost it and looked around without remembering it, and then finally finding it again somehow because UA-cam.
Neither did the Vikings. Metal nails are rather new. Pegs were the fasteners until recently. Up until the 60's dovetails were the norm for good furniture. Well after a century of screws being common and cheap. The construction industry is still using metal pipe for systems that can be done cheaper with plastics. And I don't mean pvc.
Polynesians were not claimed to have reached technological levels comparable to the pre-industrial British Empire. And yet, even they left a bulk of archaeological evidence. Also, it took the Polynesians thousands of years to colonize parts of the Pacific. There wasn't a regular ocean wide exchange of ideas and technology between let's say Hawaii and Fiji.
@@paulmcclung9383 the vikings used metal though, maybe not for nails in the constuction of boats, but metal in weapons and jewelry. They have left evidence of their presence all over europe.
I used to read Graham Hancock back in the days when he was writing about the Great Pyramid. Some of his points made sense (or at least raised interesting questions); he even gathered a few specialists who concurred with him about some specific details like the water runoff at the basin around the Sphinx. OK, that was fine & interesting. He followed up with his "search" for the Ark of the Covenant - which was a fun travelogue sprinkled with neat details from historical records and old religious documents. But then ... THEN ... then he had to write new books, find new theories, make increasingly grander claims ... with the result being a bizarre mishmash of bogus archaeology. It was sad to see such a smart writer descend into Von Daniken fever-dreams.
@@Ramasita13 Maybe I'm remembering the order in which I read them, not the order of publication. Still, I think it's a fair assessment that as he has continued to write, his books have strayed farther from the fields of science and technology. I find that some begin with an interesting and accurate kernel, which expands into assumptions, presumptions and suppositions, eventually arriving at a wild claim. It's as if he allows his imagination to overpower rational thought. His enthusiasm and writing skill continue to entertain, but not enlighten.
@@rgnyc well he's an author first and foremost. to blame him for doing author things is not fair I'd wager. but the theories in his books are fun to ponder with. I wouldn't shame him for wanting to sell books to a broader audience that's more perceptible to a fairytale with reality sprinkled on it either, than a rather bone dry factual piece with tons of scientific evidence for a couple handful of pros. but the basic idea of smth like that of a more advanced human civilization which was present way before we previously knew would be smth that I wouldn't call bogus if they found evidence of it one day. not to the point of seafaring on the level of the British Empire... but agriculture and some advanced mathematics? yeah sure. doesn't have to be taught either. pretty sure most ppl discovered similar stuff around the globe without knowing of each other all the time. still do. as long as ppl have a common ground at which they base their knowledge on - may be advanced chemistry in the modern world, or astronomy in the ancient world - they'll likely end up at a similar conclusion after a certain period of time.
One really has to admit the there’s a lot of crap we cannot explain. And that’s all that matters. So guess we shall. I’ve seen graham, and never once did he say he’s right just questioning things
He often says he is right, He claims Gobekli Tepi is a vindication of his earlier parent culture theory and constantly says he was right when all the experts were wrong. The fact that Gobekli Tepi is hundreds of miles from Egypt and further in time from the pyramid builders than the pyramid builders are to us doesn't seem to bother him. He never addresses arguments that contradict his beliefs like how the Mammoths went extinct because of the younger dryas cataclysm but managed to still not be extinct on Wrangel island a thousand years after the pyramids were built? And wrangel Island is far nearer the supposed impact site.
@@strangetranceoffaith Hancock's belief is that the Great Sphinx and Pyramid are not from the Egyptian Old Kingdom, but a far older civilization. He also believes that Gobekli Tepe isn't the remnants of an advancing society early neolithic, but rather the declined legacy of a much more advanced civilization from earlier that was trying to teach its advanced knowledge to prehistoric humans. He also believes that Gobekli Tepe flipped the "narrative" on its head, rather than provided evidence for one of the main theories of civilization: and that is that the neolithic revolution was the result of an advancing Paleolithic society that had developed a complex society, as opposed to the other major theory which states that the neolithic revolution just kind of happened, and it was required for complex society to exist. What Graham Hancock does is assumes only the second of these two theories can be true, and therefore civilization must have happened much earlier, because otherwise complex societies capable of building Gobekli Tepe couldn't exist. He somewhat ignores that Gobekli Tepe is pre-crop domestication. Right now the archaeologists are trying to prove that Gobekli Tepe was a cultural center of the society that domesticated wheat. One of the major steps in the development of human society. Graham Hancock somewhat dismisses the relevance of this. I actually did read two of his books: Fingerprints and Magicians. I think he's an enjoyable writer to read, but he's full of ******
I agree with most of your points but it's still Ironic...I would never have searched for the Younger Dryus or found your Channel had it not been for Hancock's JRE episodes.
@@DG-iw3yw "And yet "smarter" isn't a real word" 'facepalm' Smart /smɑːt/ Learn to pronounce adjective comparative adjective: *smarter* Source: Oxford Languages. And it's people like you that call Graham Hancock a fool. Very bad attempt there champ.
It stand to reason that if metropolises can exist under air, then they must exist under water, under the crust of the earth, underneath the mantle, underneath the outer core Cities just pop up fully formed everywhere regardless of intelligent intervention as part of the convenience principle which allows easy habitation for the propagation of cosmic life
I think it’s likely we have “lost” much, if not most of our history, but the “spiritual” idea is tenuous at best. I enjoy Hancock’s work, but take it all with a grain of salt. I find the impact hypothesis to be compelling, but the idea that it was on par with pre-industrial Britain is extremely unlikely.
I"m willing to reject all that "spiritual" conjecture, but can he explain the levels of technology shown at the South American sites and the old artifacts in Egypt? Of course he can't. The rest of his denials are based on "Well, we've already proven A, B, and C.", and refusing to consider that those "proven" facts may be, and should be, subjected to change when confronted with new evidence. I disagree that Archaeology is a paragon of open-mindedness, when I see the savage, ad hominem attacks on anyone who disputes the "Clovis First" orthodoxy. Or, for that matter, the Concentric Out of Africa human dispersal "fact". Any challenge to the orthodoxy seem to meet with a solid wall of "Well, that just can't be." from department heads and conference organizers. That kind of professional force brought against people who discover inconvenient science sure as hell doesn't make the field seem "willing to change with new evidence". But who knows? If the findings of the field stay firmly on "the right side of history", he may someday get the Seal as an Inquisitor Scientifica Hereticus and be able to use more forceful means to dismiss people like Hancock.
See I like Hancock and was and am still fascinated by his hypothetical history but videos like this to keep me grounded are still a very valuable resource to have available. Thanks Stephan!
I can't think of very many more amazing, fantastic things than Hancocks theory being correct. That would be super cool. But there's myriad reasons to think it's wrong, and zero reasons to think it's right. Stefan's point about there not having been domesticated foods from the Americas in Afro-Eurasia prior to Europeans invading the Americas (and the reverse, no einkorn wheat or barley in the Americas) is a brutal knock-out of an argument. If Hancock were right, the Spaniards should have thought, upon arriving to the Americas, "wow, cool, they have maize here also."
@@cacogenicist yeah I don’t think he’s right. I just said his theories were fascinating. It’s all hypothetical history. I don’t need convincing he’s wrong when it’s something I already know to be the case.
@@silvrtaln pretty much yeah. Your the second person to think I believe Hancock was correct. When in fact I don’t even in the slightest. Must be a low iq problem
"See I like Hancock..." and why would you like a liar? He is asserting that which is not evidently true as fact, knowingly spreading unsubstantiated claims for profit.
I actually find Graham Hancock's talks entertaining, and I kinda like him. Some of his ideas are at least interesting to ponder (esp the Sphinx theories), but my BS detector is also constantly going off when I watch vids of him, and I've always worried about non-scientific persons who are also watching with their minds a bit *too* open...
Can I use this comment as my own? Exactly what I think basically. Everytime he talks about "the established groups are trying to suppress this information" is when I take him a notch down in my mind.
That Elon guy suggests a good goal for success is to know that you are always wrong to some degree and to try and become less wrong. If I did choose to believe this, then the idea of questioning the most foundational concepts in a given field (archeology included) would seem the best way to become more accurate. Questioning my most foundational assumptions would seem a good place to start as the consideration of alternative concepts could potentially avail me to new information or a new way of understanding information, whereas if I were to have an unwillingness to suspend my stance on my longstanding concept my progress would be limited to obtaining it from others or when large and obvious examples are revealed to disprove old ideas. To know you don’t know, what a gift.
It's one thing to question. It's another to propose different answers that contradict all the evidence. That's the sort of "questioning" and "open-minded thinking" flat earthers engage in.
That's not what knowing what you don't know is, lol. "Knowing what you don't know" refers to understanding that there is a specific idea or problems that you can identify but are currently unable to conquer it. Its a matter of needing more knowledge not less.
However, the same arguments would have been made about Gobleki Tepe? If there was a civilization in 9000BC capable of constructing a megalithic complex of this scale, we would have found evidence of it by now. Before the discovery of Gobleki Tepe, archaeologists concluded that its impossible. They argued that the sphinx cannot be from 9000bc, because a megalithic site simply does not exist in 9000bc.
@@jellyrollthunder3625 The rational position would be to admit that we don't really know for sure. If the established pre-historical timeline is constantly being overturned (e.g. G.Tepe, pre-clovis sites), how reliable is the latest one? It means that the current body of archeological evidence is very incomplete. "We would have found evidence of it by now" is a mistake. The latest accepted timeline is just speculation, but archeologists constantly make the mistake of taking it as established dogmatic fact.
@@jellyrollthunder3625 One example was a Scientific American article by Michael Shermer attacking Hancock. Even though only 10% of Goblekli Tepe was excavated, Shermer concluded that it was "a ceremonial religious site, not a city-there is no evidence that anyone lived there." There was a strong reluctance to allow for the possibility of domestication because it further contradicts established dogma and timeline. Soon after, evidence of domestication was found - rainwater harvesting, grinding stones, dwellings. We now think that Goblekli Tepe was a permanent settlement. Same for the discovery of pre-clovis sites, new theories were at first ridiculed because it contradicted "established facts".
what archaeologist said this was impossible before the discovery of Gobekli Tepe? Nevali Cori was discovered 10 years prior and dated 8400 bce. also the walls of Jerico were originally dated to be 9000 bce in 1952. That's also not why they think the Sphinx is 4500 years old "because a megalithic site simply does not exist in 9000bc" it's thought to be modelled after a specific emperor. the only argument to support it saying stone doesn't erode that quickly as if sandstorms doent erode stone (which was originally claimed by a 1950's french mystic Schwaller de Lubicz)
Im not into the spiritual aspects of Hancocks ideas, but I do believe that there is more civilizations we haven't discovered. I want believe that Atlantis is real and find it one day, but I do not think they were anything like Hancock makes them out to be.
Yeah I think he has a point on the tantalizing evidence of Pleistocene civilization but then makes himself look absurd by going down this hippie-spiritual path. He needs to stick with the anomalously early mathematics and astronomical knowledge and the weird underwater ruins and then say: "Look, we know something was there. We know something happened. Let's not speculate, let's discover."
"Atlantis" has been discovered. Crete was home to the ancient and extremely advanced bronze age minoan civilization, a volcano erupted and caused a huge Tsunami which destroyed large parts of the Civ. HENCE: "Posiedon was mad" This may have contributed to the later decline, and the ancient civ was mostly forgotten until the 19th century? when it was rediscoved. Dates and legends largely corroborate this hypothesis.
Concerning Atlantis, if you consider everything Plato said, it can only be in one place : the Azores islands. Randall Carlson makes a very strong argument of that, backed up with a ton of evidence that he discusses over a 5 parts long podcast on his UA-cam channel, you should go check it out ! I have been looking for the city myself and read about many hypothesis for years and I think that this one is definitely the final pick !
@@thecheaperthebetter4477 Ancient guys Plato and Solon have debunked that claim. They never said it was Crete. The descriptions of Atlantis, whether or not it existed, is NOT Crete. I don't know where the Crete claim comes from, but there are 0 historical sources which say its Crete. If we get clues from Plato, Atlantis should be somewhere in the Atlantic, or west Afrca. We could also get clues from copies of ancient maps. In those maps, you sometimes see "Atlantis" and its NOT Crete.
Satisfying to watch this, I’ve never understood the appeal of Hancock and have been frustrated on other videos where he has appeared (such as JRE) where he was hardly challenged.
What gets me is how upset the Hancock lapriders get when you have a legit objection. It’s like there’s this gnostic fantasy in their heads that only they know the secret truth.
Göbekli Tepe expands our understanding of the ancients... But it's an absurd stretch from that to woo woo (like aliens or angels or a psychic civilization)
Just fine. It caused a few assumptions to have to shift a bit - less in response to general timing than in terms of which developments preceded which others - but nothing remotely like positing a globe-spanning civilization during the Paleolithic. We always knew people had started growing crops and developing larger and more complex communities in some form by around 10,000 BC.
Göbekli Tepe shows us that Neolithic people build huge stone structures. We already knew this! We just have to push back the date when they started. And guess what (despite what Hancock likes to say) acheologists have done this, with great exitement and willingness - that is; changed their views on Neolithic people. What Hancock does is, rather condescendingly, saying “hunter gathers couldn’t have build this without help/instructions”. This is just an assumption. But a necessary one, because if they actually were capable and smart, then we don’t need an old lost civilisation to teach them this stuff - of course, Hancock does not actually have any evidence. So, no…. Göbekli Tepe did not “fit the timeline”, but we changed the timeline. That is LITERALLY what archeology does. There’s no mystery. No acheological junta oppressing Hancock. What there is of course, is an objection to Hancock using all that we yet do NOT know of Göbekli Tepe and other sites as an excuse to say “well survivors of an Atlantis like civilsation did that”.
What about the underwater pyramids on the coast of Japan and in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, the Azores. Same pyramids found in the Amazon as in China. Where is the historical account on any of this?
@Rienk Kroese I just looked up the Japanese pyramids (yonaguni). For what it's worth, Robert Schoch and John Anthony West have said that they think they're naturally occurring. And those 2 typically Side with Hancock's worldview. I also saw some pictures of underwater pyramids but they looked cgi or doctored or whatever.
Funny how the psychic ubermensch that had a globe-wide civilization were completly obliterated and wiped off the surface of the earth because of a meteorite and the hunter-gatherers just went by as if nothing happened. Who's the superior culture now ?
Hancock explained how that makes sense and one has to agree to some extent. The people of this civilisation didn’t manage to adapt to the environmental changes that this impact caused while hunter-gatherers had the skills to survive off the lands and could deal with this catastrophe much better because of that. Similar to how you would expect hunter-gatherers to survive in a world where all our modern supply chains suddenly broke down while the average civilised person would die due to us not knowing how to survive. A meteor impact of that scale would cause a „nuclear winter“ and so a culture that relies on agriculture to feed itself would die out much quicker than a culture in which the people know how to survive in the wild.
Who do you think is better suited to survive an environmental crisis - middle class New York city residents, or a tribe of hunter gatherers? The average New Yorker cant start a fire, hunt, fish, fabricate tools or tell you what the tree in their own backyard is while hunter gatherers dont have a choice they need to know these things
They're so super advanced that they also left no possible trace of their existence within any measurable proxy. Maybe the title 'Fingerprints of the Gods' is apt, because just like God, you cannot demonstrate that they do not exist so therefore we now have no choice but to believe in the prophet Hancock, who is the only one that knows of their existence.
Also I like how everyone is debating about how this society collapsed, when there is no proof that they ever existed. You might as well speculate as to the reproductive processes of Digimon, because it has about as much merit.
@@TheSirPrise proof of their existence is not required because the question is not whether a an advanced society existed but where the development of society begins and the end of barbarism ends there is no evidence of many societies on earth and yet they were there and their advancement is subjective
so advanced they could make a globe spanning fleet of boats and leave no trace. so advanced they could build all those megalithic sites without leaving a single tool behind. so advanced they had mapped the slow movement of the stars across millennia. also apparently too advanced to be bothered passing on the secret of soap.
@@AulisVaara I don't disagree at all. My comment was meant to imply something as everyday useful as basic sanitation could have had a titanic impact on day to day quality of life. Soap is fairly easy to make, a pyramid or an ocean crossing boat not as much.
@Old Baron Archaeology should spend more time trying to find out if the ideas are true than trying to disprove them. The archaeological record cannot be assumed to represent anywhere near the whole story, and what we do have already poses many questions that the commonly agreed upon narrative cannot explain. That's why Hancock and colleagues work is important, and why the onslaught of vitriol they receive is only detrimental to humanity itself
I posted a comment. Then I looked at the other comments that have stacked up these past few years... OMG! May I interject that Stefan has definitely set the tone with his excellent voice, delivery, choice backdrop and attire... AND the classic spoon (much missed)! This has got to be, by it's very debased delivery, one of the best rebuttals of woo on the internet. AN ABSOLUTE CLASSIC😂😅😂 It had me chuckling and chugging at least half a bottle of wine. So, I have to say: Guys, basically Handcock started off interesting enough to get on Rogan (bless his heart, I love him), but not too controversial and then, dragging the likes of Randall & co. Into the pit with him, transmogrified into full on con artist pushing this Atlantean mythological superrace BS; he even got onto Netflix! Shame. ...so I was amazed, perusing the comments herein, how many people are into this woo stuff. They don't believe in genetics, methodology, fieldwork, research, peer review, I mean I could go on and on. ARE WE ALL GOING CRAZY? Enough. Enough. Archeaology is complicated enough without this obscure, obscurantist cloud. I invite you all: Think of it like polishing a beautiful, old, antique, but dirty mirror. At first it's fuzzy though we can make out some of the shapes in the reflection. A head, an arm. We rub more, make it clearer and now the picture gets sharper. Fingers! Nails... We see more and more details , but we can never hope to clean it perfectly. There are quite a few spots where the backing flaked off. Of course we can touch it up (like the awesome tool modern genetics has become to archaeology) but it will never be perfect, however we ARE getting a clearer picture of ourselves, despite being notoriously underfunded! Handcock wants to break the mirror!😢 If you are interested in archeaology then study the subject, listen to more people and enjoy learning about this fascinating fast evolving world we all sprung from together through pre-history. Help polish the mirror. Don't just listen to Handcock. Peace. By the way, hic, I'm not an archaeologist but I did a few credits while studying geophysics. Sorry, I'm getting drunk... 😋 I'm planning a bike trip through a tunnel to the Richat Structure and the surroundings. Anyone game?Possibly YT material? Should be fun. Shoutout to Bruce Fordyce and Gavin if you read this😊
It's impossible to argue with hancocks disciples because they aren't interested in reality or truth but in hancocks fantasy Atlantis bullcrap, and until every square meter of earth is excavated they'll use the god of the gaps argument to say "see it's still possible you can't disprove it because we haven't looked absolutely everywhere yet" Same grift hancock had in the mars mystery - we haven't landed on mars yet so it's still possible
So let me ask this, on a serious note! Do primary sources no longer matter in the study of history? Or is it scholars that have their interests and reputations invested in a collective narrative? Would cuneiform tablets not be considered primary? Not according to historians! The repetition and consistency within these refutes our historical doctrine but don't let that get your way!! Again with primary accounts and assessments of the Americas, especially South America, pre colonization, those don't count either! Along very little to no digs being done! Oh and that the magnitude and scale of Gobekli Tepi and other areas being discovered in surrounding areas, were built by wandering nomadic, hunters and gatherers totally makes sense too! Don't forget how Hancock was laughed at about when he discussed the idea of a meteor striking the North America that caused the sea levels to rise 30 feet within days and 300 feet within a very short period of time. Now proven! Prominent geologists writing papers refuting the dating of Sphinx!! Sorry but if you believe that there isn't a vested interest in keeping the status quo in History, then you have bought in!! I'm sure that many with blindly disagree but delve deeper!! Just because it suits your comfort zone, it doesn't make it the truth!
... Okay, firstly primary sources are considered. However, like eyewitness testimony in court, they're often viewed as unreliable and need to be corroborated. This is why we don't believe dragons are real despite numerous stories of men fighting dragons. Secondly, there are plenty of digs being done, particularly across the Americas. As a huge enthusiast of Folsom Culture Paleoindian archaeology, I find it offensive that people keep peddling Hancock's bullshit about "the archaeological paradigm." We learn new things about Paleoindians every day. Hancock just refuses to acknowledge this because none of what we learn supports it. Gobekli Tepe was not necessarily built by "wandering nomadic" hunters and gatherers. It was possibly built during the transition to agriculture, and thus you may have had people in certain areas far longer and using the same spiritual sites for great amounts of time. Hancock's crater is nowhere near proven. Yes, there is a crater in Greenland. Fun fact: all we know is that it is younger than about 2 million years. That does not mean that it hit the Earth 12,000 years ago. Also, Hancock's original claim is that there wasn't a crater and we would never find one because it hit the ice sheet, so the crater vaporized. Funny how he changed his tune once a crater was discovered. Sphinx water erosion hypothesis is nonsense. There's no backing to it, and the geologist who makes these claims regularly debunks himself. It's kind of sad. When people tell you to "open a mind," please don't use a crowbar. It makes you spout stupid bullshit like your comment and you look really ignorant.
@@echoecho3155 he actually never claimed that the crater in greenland has been proven to be 12000 yo. He specifically says that he suspects it to be so but its not proven yet.he even says more research is needed to pinpoint what it is and when it happened. He uses other things as evidence of what happened. If hancock was to twist archaelogical studies like you baffoons twist his words he would be flipping burgers by now. Its pathetic how much you lie about his claims. Also notice how unsure ure terminology is when u talk about gobekli-tepe. Like "its not necessarily to be these nomadic tribes" and " its possibly done during the transition from huter-gatherer"... why so unsure?? Is it perhaps that there is something inconclusive about it? Perhaps some things arent adding up? So unsure about the topic but yet so surely discredit someone elses theories... Just an observation thats all. I dont think u are giving hancock the credit to even properly listen to what he says. He speaks in very hypothetical terms...
And when archaeologists find ruins completely beyond the ability of the Incas to have constructed, and the Inca descendants say "Uh, sure, we built all that." Archaeologist jump right on it. (Even though the oldest Inca traditions say "No, man, some kinda god-like beings built that stuff.") And then they portray themselves as "scientists" and Hancock as a "quack". I remain unimpressed.
Any society building anything in the environment of the Amazon, out of organic materials, is not going to have anything survive 12,000 years. You probably think ancient advanced civilizations only formed in places where the environment would preserve their works and artifacts. Just dumb luck for the Archaeologists, right?
@@MrJonsonville5 noshit sherlock. Evidence for Sumer and Indus civic barely survive under dry condition. Earth and plant fill up thing. No one try to look before because it ain't possible and now we have evidence only because of foken deforestation. Archaeology is about clues and what if. It don't have fix container in like real science physics and math.
Objection 1: where is the stuff? My objection to this is that were not done looking. Were finding stuff all the time and constantly having to push back dates further into the past. Objection 2: if sea levels were lower there would be much more land mass to hop across. So the argument that it's hard to believe that a civilization could travel the globe because of the distance is silly. Objection 3: why is it ridiculous to believe a ancient civilization could have a different diet? You say they should have seen the benefit of having a wide variety of crops but make no mention of how the climate at that time may have limited the options Objection 4: genetic mixing between aboriginal Australians and south Americans. How? You presented evidence but claim it if we're accurate there would be more. How much more do you need? Objection 5: just because the picture isn't complete doesn't mean you should dismiss it entirely. The shared DNA between south Americans and aboriginal Australians is your trans Pacific evidence. Most of your arguments end in "it's stupid" or "I don't think so" which is weak. You wouldn't have to say that had you argued your points better. I like Graham Hancock. I take his point of view with a grain of salt. The biggest thing I have learnt from him is that most people are too arrogant to let their ideas be challenged. It exposes a lot of hipocracy. I wish you could have come up with better answers.
You can cross oceans with stone age technology. Travel for trade or seasonal migration happens. A stoneage transcontinental network seems unlikely, but I wouldn't dismiss it. It's fun and useful to explore unlikely scenarios. Great video as always.
I agree with this. There is some evidence that the polynesians reached south america with primitive technology. However, what these advanced lost civilization theorists are often claiming is that there was a culture far more advanced than the ancient egyptians, Mesopotamian, Inca, etc, and they were the ones who actually constructed these megalithic sites. Many of them claim they had machinery, electricity, levitation devices, lasers, etc, in order to move and cut the stones. That really is nonsense. We do know who built those sites and a lot about how they did it.
You can, but it is a lot harder to survive such a journey without adequate supplies which seems unlikely using stone age rafts. Even if they lived only on plentiful raw fish found in the sea they would still need a lot of fresh water. Water is essential beyond even food for survival on a long sea voyage. I suppose it is not impossible that they could have filtered saltwater through some kind of cloth to get barely drinkable water - but desalination isn't expensive today for no reason.
@@TonyTrupp well we actually just dont know how they were built perfect example is the sphinx where the aging and corrosion of the stone nowhere near matches that of the great pyramids
While I now disagree with Graham Hancock, I can't deny how important my first hearing him speak was for getting me to have a healthier spiritual outlook on my life and the world
When an "archeologist" or any other scientist/researcher spends more time on podcasts and other shows being angry about people not believing him/her rather than doing his research, you can already conclude that he's there only for the buzz. We have a very funny specimen of them here in France called Jacques Grimault. Spoiler: It always leads to Aliens in the end...
Not gonna lie, his theories may be far removed from reality, but they are pretty entertaining. There are about 10 hours of podcast interviews with Joe Rogan on UA-cam that make good background noise.
I just read America Before and that is not a great description of that book. And you critiquing his ideas based off of another critics description (that is biased ) is very silly, you haven’t read Hancock’s book but you want to comment on the info he’s presenting? there’s nothing flawed with that plan?
Fiction is fiction. Clearly you enjoy a good story. Nothing wrong with that, but it isn't real. Hancock is an author, publicising fantasy for money and notoriety.
@@rockysexton8720 The issue is that there are very few “facts” in regards to prehistory. I am in my late 30s and the “facts” surrounding our history have changed dramatically during my short life.
@@aprichman i agree, even without knowing grahams work, ive seen big inconsistancies in the record, just the official history about the pyrimids makes me not want to believe anything the academia say, how can they pretend just by authority afirms the ways thoses structures were build, they even say egiptcians didnt know about the wheel, no matter how manny titles they have i wont belive em without prove and they have facts but that do not prove their conclusions,
A lot of people defending Hancock don't have the slightest idea what evidence is. "But what about all the evidence!" Just because a con man says it's evidence, doesn't mean it is.
@@nazarkinash8580 Start a conversation about what? Pseudoscience and make believe? Hancock is making absurd claims based on childish interpretations of archeology. Imagine if someone said that because Egyptian Hieroglyphs are real, that means Santa Clause is also real. That's Graham Hancock logic.
I think your objections are fair and make sense. I love listening to Hancock because he's a fun and passionate guy, but the simple fact that he always finds himself on the fringes with virtually every historical topic should tell you a lot. Oh, the plastic spoon was a nice touch. Cheers.
And that he was originally a science fiction writer, before he started to reframe his working as conveying some hidden truth that’s being suppressed by a conspiracy of evil academics.
@My names Jeff, if there was actual incontrovertible evidence, science would have accepted it. 99.99% of the time that is the case. I would know, I'm an evolutionary biologist. Cheers.
Let's be real, if psychic gurus spread their knowledge of advanced civilization to the Earth then we would have seen evidence for a death metal phase back when they were still in high school.
I liked Ancient Apocalypse. My skeptic BS detector beeped a lot while I was watching it. Your long vid also provided a lot of useful context about where Hancock goes off the rails. But in his defense, he's popularizing a lot of good info. I did not know about a lot of those sites he features. And he keeps the woo-woo crackpot stuff to a minimum. Haven't read his books, but I saw him on Rogan where he does let his freak flag fly, so I was glad he kept most of that out of the TV show. It might be that humans need a good mystery/conspiracy story to keep us interested in a dry, obscure academic topic. Maybe this show drives more attention and money for research.
I've no idea about Hancock. BUT, i have one HUGE objection to much of the arguments about "ancient advanced civilisations". Ancient according to WHO? Compared to WHEN? Just because Plato describes and "advanced civilisation" doesn't mean it would be advanced compared to TODAY, i mean seriously, anyone who thinks that needs to first explain how Plato would have any idea about the world thousands of years after his death! HOWEVER, the basic concept that there MAY have been cultures "peaking" a lot higher than what was normal for their time of existance and then pretty much disappears without much trace? I would say that THAT is entirely possible, maybe even plausible to have happened at least once in history. Because lets face it, if something managed to achieve, oversimplified, a Rome 0AD culture 6 thousand years ago, what's the probability that anything from that was left behind to be found? Like the pharao tombs, anything surviving whatever destroyed the culture would be prime plunder targets for everyone who ever heard even a whisper about the culture at its prime. What if the only traces of such a culture is currently in the middle of the North Sea, ie Doggerland, or what if it's buried deep under some existing large city? Or for another variation, what if a culture developed a shipbuilding style like the vikings and used it to travel around a lot, you might find extremely vague traces in regional DNA, but since those could have happened by overland or simpler means of travel by sea, it would be impossible to figure out the difference. And considering how exceptionally hard it is to find traces of such ships even just a thousand years old? The probability that we would ever find such from say, 5 thousand BC, is essentially zero. And to keep going on the "ships" theme, we do for example already know of at least one culture that DID build something far beyond what we know anything real about. Julius Caesar's battles with the Veneti mention their great troubles with their ships, as they were too big to board. And too big to board for Roman warships of the time, that puts their minimum size as VERY BIG. Yet we know absolutely nothing about those ships and barely anything even about the people. . Now, i haven't even started looking at the actual video yet, that will have to wait, because now it's morning and i have to sleep.
Well… Well, well, well… Let me say, like many controversial figures; I quite enjoy Hancock’s work for the fact that it isn’t what we are usually told. He does lay out; for the most part, a very compelling “What if?” narrative. However, I’ve felt that that’s all it is. It is fun to think and wonder. What DON’T we know? Especially compared to what we THINK we know. Aside from the telekinetic explanations and the like; I’ve always found Graham Hancock’s work at the VERY least worth a read. But, all that aside; you quite took his thesis’s to task. Very, very impactful. Plenty of things I never considered but seem so obvious; which is probably why a) His work intrigues me and b) I am no historian/ paleontologist. However your videos lay out the counter arguments so simply and obviously. Regardless of where we came from, how we got here, and what are past is I truly feel like we are lucky and this existence is magical in the sense that regardless of what you believe none of it TRULY makes sense to our brains. Thank you, keep up the good work.
Thank you for this video, great to hear an informed view. Also as a production person I love the Lav on a spoon idea, never thought of that one, going with sideing lav into a small PVC tube for a duel purpose as a lav for single standups and in "stick mic" form for man on the street interviewing. I'm going to use that , btw have you tried putting the capsule on the inside curve of the spoon to reflect/block external noise? and if you use a metal spoon instead, will if give some positive or negative resonance. I've now got an experiment of my own in mind :) as this might end up being a great (what I call) guerilla without a dime tip
The “stuff” is everywhere- but metal oxidizes quickly and rust away- leave a car sitting in your front yard for 100 or 500 years it will be nothing left. There are sooo many cities that have been re-discovered with megaliths that are machined and we give credit to the civilization that preside in the are at the time. Egyptians, the Aztecs, the native Americans all say when asked about the structures that exist in the area they live in they say-“ they were here when we got here” Also as far as farming- the rainforest are man made the soil is there is manmade and after those civilizations were wiped out the fields without being attended to started to grow wildly because of the soil that was used to grow crops then.
Marvin Becker what evidence do you have to show that the pyramids were built in the 4th dynasty? There’s evidence to show that there were repairs or some reconstruction of them- but I haven’t seen evidence of building them. And the people of Teotihicaun and the Mayans and Olmecs did build at these sites- but they merely tried to replicate and built over the already existing structures- anyone can see there are 2 totally different types of construction the bottom being way more advanced than that on top which is a poor copy of the bottom construction type.
Marvin Becker as far as the Roman coins they were made of copper, gold and silver alloys. Which do not oxidize. Any type of machining tools can’t be made from such soft materials, And require iron or steel which heavily oxidizes. Coins and tools are totally different.
If the claim is “there was an advanced global civilization that had telepathic powers and more advanced technology than our own” I agree with this dismantling. If the claim is “select groups of individuals were able to cross oceans long before the mass migration via the land bridge and probably created megalithic architecture that has been swallowed by Earth via natural disasters and climate change” that’s entirely different and 100% plausible. We have no fucking clue what would happen to Earth today if a cataclysmic comet or solar storm hit us. Something that makes Tunguska look like a pebble. If humans have been “anatomically modern” for hundreds of thousands of years I think it’s perfectly reasonable that there could have been civilizations the evidence for which is buried under a mile of debris.
Plausible perhaps but it's not just that there's no evidence for it, it's disproven by the evidence that exists. Hancock argues for a cataclysm that would have wiped out the civilization pre Younger Dryas in his latest series. The archaeology suggests nothing of the sort: continuity of the material culture that came before Clovis and after.
I've looked at the temperature graphs for the last 100,000 years. There are some periods of stable-ish temps that may have allowd the modern human to set down more permanent roots. Do I think they built a super empire. No. But I find it plausible that there are structures out there from over 10,000 years ago. Not big ones. Huts and stuff maybe a standing stone or two. We keep being told that we have an unpresidented stable temperature at the moment but I don't think people realise how crazy it is. It's practicly flat. Makes me even more worried about global warming. People just assume that it will all work out. It very well might not.
Actually, large bollide collision events DO leave a significant mark in the geological record, from tsunami events to Iridium anomalies. Hancock clai.s that the Younger Dryas was cataclysmic event of global proportions that wiped civilizations off the planet, yet there is scant evidence of this and plenty of evidence that it never happened at all.
@@zarhanfastfire3209 but there’s plenty of evidence that points towards serious cosmic impacts to kick start the younger dryas. So as the guy that wrote the comment said it’s certainly plausible and no archeology doesn’t show continuity. The amount of things that pop up all over the world gobekli Tepe, the 40,000 and older cave art in various locations, the 12,000 year old aboriginal Australian dna found in the Amazon, what they are now finding in the Amazon certainly doesn’t not show any form of continuity in the archaeology story.
@Bingobanana If you claim that there's "plenty of evidence", my question becomes how do _you_ know this? It's going to come down to either: The study, research and published findings from the scientific experts in the relevant fields. Or it is not. If this plethora of evidence is being presented correctly, it should be accurately representing the _current scientific consensus_ of the expert's who are the _source_ of this "plenty of evidence" for event X, or Y, or whatever. In other words, those scientists would be the ones making the claim about their own findings, and moreover their work will have been transparent, and accessible to the rest of their field, and there would be a general consensus that the conclusions are drawn correctly from the evidence. If you have anyone pointing out how much "evidence" there is for something that _no one else_ who is actually expert enough to evaluate the source of this evidence, claims, then either the person who said that is lying or, the _all_ the dissenting scientists are... And if you are leaning towards the entire academic field is lying, rather than one guy, then the question becomes: Why would anyone use the research, data and findings from a field that they "know" is made up of "experts" who are either too stupid to draw the correct conclusions from their own work, or too dishonest to... The knowledge you have of the climate event in question comes from the very scientists and field of study that are also supposed to be too stupid, or too full of sht, to be correct about anything historical climate, does it not? This should be enough to have you pause and think about it for a moment.
Hancock resuscitates an obsolete C19th hypothesis, originally based on an ignorance of plate tectonics and racist assumptions about innovation, and dresses it up with some esoteric claptrap and conspiracy theory paranoia: prehistory for the hard of thinking.
I think people overlook how much his work plays into that ongoing historical narrative that people around the world were not able to develop technology and culture independently that has been at the root of racist pseudo-history for the better part of 200 years
Objection #1 considering most civilizations lived along rivers or the coast... Most archeological remains would now be underwater, not to mention the destruction across the land from flooding after an impact/airburst over a glacier. Example, the Clovis culture is found below the 12960bp black mat layer, but not above it. There are entire underwater towns of the coast of Spain, Italy, Greece, Egypt, Turkey, India, Japan's, Indonesia....
I was unaware that all of the cities in Spain, Italy, Freeze, Egypt, Turkey, India, Japan and Indonesian were under water. What's that? They weren't? Those civilizations moved beyond the rivers waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before they gained the ability to sail across the world. Well, I guess this civilization was just dumb.
@@cemarz "I was unaware that all of the cities in Spain, Italy, Freeze, Egypt, Turkey, India, Japan and Indonesian were under water." Lying about what he said undermines any counter arguments you make later...
The irony for Graham's strongest argument for ancient civilization was actually buried under the ground and not the sea! Never heard of Göbekli Tepe until Graham wrote about it or the Ufra region with the other Tepe's! Most archeologists in the UK still marvel at Stone Henge that looks like it was never finished compared to the stone masonry at Tepe's of Turkey built thousands of years before! On the DNA argument on my father's side, I supposedly hail from Sardinia but for some strange reason, I also have strong Hainan Chinese, Central American/ South American DNA but my dad was white as they come with blonde hair and blue eyes my Caucasian is 13th on the list!
@@jamesjeffreys424 1. Tepe is extremely explainable within the current understandings of archeology, no need to delve into pseudoscientific claims like that it was actually waaaaay older. 2. If the DNA testing you did was actually accurate (pop dna companies have a habit of fudging things) it doesn’t suddenly prove that you have traceable ancestry to this superculture from 40k years ago. It just means one of your recent ancestors, but not so recent that you or any extant family would have known them, was of the groups that you were surprised to find in the results. Contact with the Americas has existed for 600 years now, and with China technically longer. It’s not crazy to think somewhere in there you got an ancestor from one of these groups.
I like Hancock (as in, I consider his theories plausible), but your objection number 3 is pretty good: why no tomatoes in the old world? That being said, the idea that humankind suffered some catastrophe at the end of the younger dryass is looking better and better. Plus, why would we ignore the insistance of many mythologies in a great deluge? I don't think Hancock will turn out to be fully right, but his theories, by virtue of proposing different angles, might inspire better models of prehistory.
I'm surprised you wasted any time on this bollox, but given the sheer volume of pseudo-archaeology/science on the Internet giving it oxygen, I'm glad you did!
It’s almost like this Stephan Milo guy has never even done DMT based spirit archaeology
This comment should be pinned
I think he definitely needs to do psychedelics
Just because someone tries DMT doesn't mean they become completely illogical.
Haha imagine an entire dig tripping balls! An episode of Time Team would be REAL interesting 😂😂
Art by Jeremy Maya Robinson it’s a specific joke about Mr Hancock and I’m pro DMT for the record
The spoon increases his credibility.
Seven fold.
@@OEFarredondo You forgot to add NOT behind credibility.
Lmaooo
It's clearly there to underscore the need of any society for such implements. This exact spoon will be dug up 10,000 years from now and used to make hypotheses about our culture and lifestyle. How did Atlanteans eat soup or record their youtube videos?
One bull-scoop at a time
Hancock is being schooled by a man using plastic cutlery as a microphone
Are you on about Stefan it needs more research Milo. The only thing he’s schooled is the porky pies he hoofs into that pasty white bake of his
The only thing Milo’s schooled is the pies he keeps shovelling down his bake
Apropos..?
Joe Rogan and Graham Hancock are looking for archeologists who are willing to debate Hancock on the JRE
He and Minimnuteman should team up and do a Milo tag team takedown of Graham Hancock and Joe Rogan.
Even though he’s probably wrong about allot if stuff imo its unfair that they banned him from all these speaking events and debates
debates are entrirely performative. you rarely see scientists debating because the research should speak for itself, and hancocks research is worth less than dogshit
@@Gnochigremlin he's not simply wrong, he's intellectually dishonest. That's why he's ignored and not provided a serious platform.
I bet there are hundreds of archaeologists who would love to square up to the old fraud, so if they are serious about it there would be no problem. But don't hold your breath.
There is not a chance in Hell that old Hancock would debate any real archaeologist, he hasn't got the guts. And don't mention Zahi Hawass, that was never even meant to be a debate.
Graham makes quite the claim, which makes a series of profitable books. And therein lies the rub.
L. Ron Hubbard is another example of a guy making wild claims, whilst selling profitable books, and gaining a legion of hapless disciples in the process.
Hancock definitely has the L. R H kinda claims!!
What are you people on? How does something logical based of findings and research compare to a guy who makes believe aliens flew into a volcano to create life? 😂😂😂
@@helygg8892
If you think that Hancocks claims are logical then you really don't know much about archeology and/or scientific thinking. And apparently you haven't looked at the many claims Hancock has made and the dishonesty he has been caught with. Maybe you want to watch a video called "TV tricks of the trade - Quotes and cutaways". There's an interesting bit about Hancock at the end, which reveals how he's willing to dishonestly edit interviews to make people say the opposite of what they actually said. How can you trust such a person to give you the full picture or even honestly report what scientists are saying?
Hancock's bizarre claims appear and develop in line with the next book and book tour.
L. Ron Hubbard is the perfect analogy!
i like how this is recorded at the woodshed, with a plastic spoon
And he keeps asking “Where are the cities that this civilization has built?”
After just 1000 years, there won’t be any trace of Stephan’s house or shed. That plastic spoon is the sturdiest material we see in his yard. Maybe these ancient people had homes just like Stephan? ;0)
It is an outside dunny...!
Just like his video...!
When the truth is far less exciting than Atlantean extraterrestrials, funding doesn't come flooding in, and Rogan couldn't get as many suckers to lap it up.
Lmfao
You are so blind sir
We might also add that Graham Hancock has never been seen with a plastic spoon.
His spoons are from the only remaining material of Atlantis
a spoon is often attributed to a simple minded twit
Graham ‘Spoonless’ Hancock
Spoons don’t exist
Your point about staple crop distribution is fantastic. In fact, the whole video is the best, most succinct, rebuttal to Hancock/the pre-Younger Dryas civilization premise that I’ve seen.
There's a reason hancock appears in small tents in front of DOZENS of people.
i didnt even consider the food! its the simplest things that are the real proof.
@@DaneuwillNah the aliens gave everyone tomato but not everyone liked them so they never bothered to grow them. Duh. Plus it was too cold in some climates. Duh. And there was a big war about how to pronounce tomato which wiped a lot of tomatos out in some regions. Duh. Hancock logic. Pseudoscience is the best science.
I still think there’s a reasonable degree of doubt that would allow us to hypothesize that the Neolithic period and the implementation of agriculture may have happened much earlier into the ice age and in a different manner than we currently perceive. There are many studies being conducted on suitable and extreme growing conditions of various plant species and how different environmental and biological factors could affect the vegetative growth and production of crops. I personally maintain my own hypothesis that humanity had surpassed hunting and gathering long before the beginning of the Neolithic we put at around 12,000 years ago. I in no way agree with graham that there was a globe spanning ancient pre-younger dryas civilization but I do think that there’s a lot more to humanity’s history with agronomy.
@@Substance2020 there’s a reason why after 30 years his theories have got stronger and stronger
The name Stefan Milo is Ancient Atlantean for "Spoon Microphone".
lololol
deserves more clout
Is Atlantean a Latin or Proto-Indo-European sibling? I mean Stefan-Spoon, and Milo-Microphone are kinda similar.
@@RosalioRedPanda Is that you, Graham?
they never carried tomato because the pocket wasn't invented till the 16th century
@Nick Nack Yeah, but they probably used the bags to carry important stuff, like DMT...
Women are still trying to get dresses with pockets ten thousand years later...
No, it was because all the psychic refrigerators were off in space. You have to understand, they knew they'd want tomato's 'tomorrow' it's just that their transcendent view of time means that 'tomorrow' is on the universe scale of time. /s
That is the most idiotic comment I have ever heard on You Tube.
@@s1rmunchalot Drink the stuff under your sink.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" Carl Sagan was Not an expert in archaeology but I find Sagans quote fits well here.
Also the Hitchens quote: what that can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Sagan was into aliens and pot. It is possible to entertain ideas without believing them. Listen a bit to Hancock, apart from some slips of the tongue, the man is careful in affirming anything. As Milo says, he keeps saying that the connecting of the dots seem to point in one direction, which is his belief system. In my opinion Hancock presents plenty of evidence that should make one more ooen minded about what we know of the past.
@@ponch0partout But that's not science at all. It's just wishful thinking.
I think his other quote holds true as well "Absence of evidence does not mean evidence of absence". But I think his first quote is more appropriate. For example just because we haven't found Sassquatch, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, but to prove it does exist means we need evidence that shows humanoid DNA that matches no known extant hominoid. Surprisingly we do have such extraordinary findings recently from hair samples. Humanoid DNA that matches no known great ape nor human relative, now living.
Corrupt, self-interested mainstream science makes all kinda of extraordinary claims without extraordinary evidence. Sometimes without any real evidence at all. Therefore, I find the mainstream hypocritical and unworthy to set the standard or guidelines by which other scientists must abide.
My "favorite" thing about Hancock and his fans is that theyll take simple critques from experts in the field as scathing personal attacks. If someone is going to make assertions about something in any field (and this is what he does. He doesnt 'just ask questions' or only report on what he finds. He asserts that "mainstream history" is wrong) than anyone, regardless of standing in that area should expect and welcome critques. But instead they take being told their wrong as an insult/attack and completely throw out over a hundred years science to bolster their agrument.
No they (experts) just come across like smug douchebags, unlikeable on every level.
He also makes out any rebuttal is just Big Archaeology trying to hide the truth from us and can therefore be ignored. The idea of archaeologists being some conspiracy network is pretty funny to me.
They never critique him though. They just throw out words like "pseudo-scientist" but never explain WHY he is wrong. I'm not saying that he is right but I have no respect for those guys.
I hate "spirituality" though, and I don't think Hancock is right about anything.
It’s so funny that there is archeology beef
@@AlexH8280 That's your opinion, and if you hate the experts, you are welcome to study the field and gain a proper grounding to combat the experts. Archaeologists want to be wrong; we want to be corrected, but we need good scholarship for us to accept the claims.
Be the change you want to see in the world. If you can't do that and would rather just call us "smug douchebags" then go right ahead, just don't expect anyone to take you seriously.
To be fair. I always assumed Hancock was suggesting an interesting thought experiment on if civilisation could be older than what we currently accept. Given the Gobekli Tepi find, then it's an interesting question. I don't ever remembering him pushing this as some kind of established fact , but again I've always viewed as I said. An interesting thought exercise.
Yeah, he's got some really basic stuff that's solid, then he likes to wildly speculate based on relatively certain things that the "mainstream" hasn't taken into account in popular narratives
his views are def painted in a negative light because it highlights the shortcomings of history and archaeology.
How advanced these potential former civilizations were, is unknown. But I think most of us followers of Hancock don’t assume they had high speed internet and flying cars
@@tomzzo There is zero evidence for Hancocks ancient empire. No skeletons, no tools, no genetic markers in modern populations. But we are able to find simple firepits dated 300 000 years old.
@donwharrison What is your view on Schoch's sphinx water erosion hypothesis? It's one of the most used "evidence" by the alternative community. I have a background in history/archaeology and it's really amusing to look at all the false information these "alternative researchers" are showing, but I have no training in geology so I can't elaborate on that subject.
He has at least one interview with Joe Rogan where he is pushing clearly coocoo ideas as "facts not yet embraced by the mainstream". It is entirely possible that certain things about human civilization or homo sapiens are older than we thought. Possibly not "significantly" (meaning on a geological timescale) older, but older. Give or take a couple of centuries or milennia. Example: for a long time it was thought that homo sapiens appeared 100.000 years ago. Then that was pushed out to 200.000. Now we have 300.000 year old fossils from North Africa.
Graham Hancock new book "The Power of an English Accent in America"
Or the power of fooling Joe Rogan Fans
😂😂without that accent Joe would have hit him with a spinning side kick.
Accents are funny like that since even people with PhD's from the american south get treated like they're idiots but crazy people with Received Pronunciation are viewed as an authority worth listening too. A man with a PhD in physics would be viewed with skepticism if he had a Cajun or Arkansas accent while you could have a guy talk about ancient aliens and so long as he spoke the Queens English you'd at least be tempted to hear him out when he starts talking about alien cats teaching Egyptians how to build pyramids.
Lmao
Brace for impact everybody
Nice to see you here!
Got turned onto you through tigerstar. Same with this channel I think, actually. Thanks for making the content you do. There’s only one problem with it- I always want to go read the sources, adding more to my reading backlog. Your references lists are fantastic, and I appreciate you so much for that.
Yeah, the fans and followers don’t like their pseudo-archaeology and ancient super dudes challenged.
impact is actually quite fitting lol even though stefan never mentioned it (FYI the impact 13k years ago is proven now)
@@phillywister9957 No, it's been rebutted - www.pnas.org/content/111/21/E2162
I have been fascinated by Hancock’s stories since forever. I really enjoy reading his novels.
But he does the classic “we don’t know so therefor I can make up anything that sounds cool” fallacy. I don’t know what made that weird thud sound at night, so instead of accepting that or looking for evidence I get to make up a story about haunting ghosts and how the elite are keeping it a secret and controlling our memories through genetically modified food which is all kept secret by people with “incentives”.
We don’t know every fact about the world so therefor I get to make up a story and if you don’t agree you are just “closed off” or part of some conspiracy to suppress the truth. It is all just after the fact justification.
And that is what it is, a cool story. It is a sublime theme, faint distant memories of great past completely destroyed by unimaginable terror. Beauty, horror and delight. Would make a great novel.
What do you think of his(hanacocks) new Netflix series
@@bobnewton1064 To be honest I was kinda underwhelmed. To me the leap from “look at all these amazing and puzzling old structures” to “this points to a prehistoric civilization” is way too big.
I used to be fascinated about Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny. Then I grew up.
@@bobnewton1064 he spends half the time in his series attempting to convince the viewer that mainstream archeology is covering everything up. That they refuse to look at good evidence.
I suppose that is easy to believe when you've never taken much time to learn about what archaeologists actually do.
@@jjackomin I bet you're religious tho 😅
Just like there is a scientific method, there is a historical method. It is not allowed to bypass these methods.
Please elaborate on the historical method, no shade intended just genuine curiosity
@@JesusChrist8451 -- I imagine he means the exact same as the scientific method; That any historical theory looking to be passed as historical fact withstands the scrutiny, testability and research of his peers.
In science, nothing is cleared unless it can be repeated. I suppose the only difference with history is that not all historians and archeologists enter the field with the same scientific backgrounds, and thus interpretation is a far more serious problem.
For example, any historian looking to be validated in their understanding of history only needs to find other historians with their exact background and through sheer numbers can insist what is historical fact. It's a far more political arena than science, and therefore the methodology for determining what is and isn't true is far less accurate.
As an outsider, though, I would think any wise historian or archeologist trying to get to the bottom of something would at least lean on process of elimination to determine which theories are not true -- even if you can't pinpoint the exact theory or timetable that is. This is where I side heavily with Graham Hancock in his research, as he's already proven that historical consensus on some subjects is absolutely not true... And even with proof is not taken seriously. That has a lot to do with why many think that everything he proposes is true. The average person may not know anything about history or about dating organic materials, but they know when someone seems honest, and, compared to most archeologists and historians, Graham Hancock most certainly wins the Appearance of Integrity battle.
Yes scientific method free of ego, politics or religion.
@@rickycouture7224 sad but true, I’ve noticed there are far too many examples of Indians Jones wannabes out there in the field of archeology and too many political hacks in the field of history.
Archeology should be more than glorified grave robbing, and history should ALWAYS remain objective, but that’s easier said than done when we add humans to the equation, too many possible variables to try and get a consistent solution. Science is really good as an academic field because everything is meticulously methodical. Things have to be proven again and again for it to be seen as a truth, but when dealing with the unknown mysteries of our past there’s no real overarching structure to define how discoveries are made. Not to say the entire batch is spoiled by a few rotten apples, but those bad experiences and examples can easily cast the whole field into question unfortunately.
Hancock was on joe rogan and said archaeology was not a science...
i love the history of the earth and humans since freshman yr of college. i wtached grahams recent netflix series all the way thru and planned on doing research of my own becuase 1. i thought it was fugazzi but he seemed to make decent sense of it 2. im the last thing from an archeologist (accountant) and figured there was someone who could debunk his theories with better background than myself and pretty obbvious objections. case in point this video. i love things like this, were if i didnt know better to fact check graham, i would believe or be open to his ideas. but folk like you help me see the other things he chooses to ignore
I hope you also found Stefan Milo's new episode on the netflix series ua-cam.com/video/341Lv8JLLV4/v-deo.html
That s why experts are experts, to each is own field. I m expert in windows for houses and wintergardens, i dont play archeologists lol
@@kettelbe that's what baffles me the most sometimes these days, many ppl don't seem to even ask about ppl's scientific background or motives anymore, it's just like, if a theory sounds the smallest bit interesting and believable, it's fair play to lots of folks out there...
@@mowgli8945 Shits scary. And before the internet, before these gullible mouth breathers had a chance to assimilate fellow likeminded smooth brains, these dumb fucks would’ve been relegated to the stool in the back corner of the classroom with a dunce cap on.
And before that, involuntarily admitted to the psych ward in a straight jacket.
And before that, thrown off a cliff with a broom between their legs to see if they would fly away.
And before that, forced into a pillory in the middle of town, with their beliefs plastered to the front for all the townspeople to read and laugh at while throwing tomatoes at them.
The fuckin internet bro… I love it and I hate it.
This series would be perfect also for the "History" Channel, its great storytelling without a single ounce of hard evidence. "IF this happened and IF this happened its safe to assume THIS happened" sure but there's no hard evidence IT did happen.
I blame the Historychannologists
Turn off cable TV people. Seriously
The major recent source of Graham Hancock's recent influence is his interviews on Joe Rogan's online show. Unfortunately, Rogan has a lot of subscribers and has a lot of influence. His last interview with Hancock got over 8 million views. The scientific world better start adapting and going on shows like his and refuting Hancock's claims otherwise the general public will continue to be misled.
Stefan does a good job in this video, but he has 43K subscribers and Rogan has nearly 9 million.
But ancient astronaut conspiracy theorists say......🤣🤣🤪
@@IndependentThinker74 unfortunately academics tend to be about 30 years behind the public information arms race, and considering how old and popular books like Chariots of the Gods are this has been this way for half a century or more minimum
Upcycle Electronics I agree with you 100percent. Living with the faires
When we learned about history in school, especially the different ages like copper, bronze, iron etc, it was like a clear limitation to what could be done with in example copper and bronze and when we came to iron it was much better and created fantastic work by humans. And then when we came to the copper age and the teacher with a small smile on the face said: in the copper age we built these Great Pyramids" litterary half the class laughed. It makes zero sense what so ever even to a child. Our teacher claimed we would figure it out when archaeologist dig deeper. This was 30 years ago and almost nothing has changed. The Sphinx, the Sphinx temple, the Great Pyramids, the Karnak temple and so much more are accredited to a copper aged civilization.
The reason the Sphinx are dated to 4500 years old, is because it`s the oldest we knew back then. Now we know about Gobekli Tepe wich is 12.000 year old. If humans could create the Gobekli Tepe 8-12.000 years ago, they could also have created the Sphinx much earlier than 4500 years ago.
So to only trust what you are teached, and not seek further information is not good either, it`s important to think about several aspects as new information become available with the passage of time.
Came here after watching the Netflix show. Some red flags that were raised for me as a layman:
1. Most of the discoveries and data Hancock relies upon were collected by the very people he tells us not to trust--the archaeologists.
2. If there were compelling evidence of an older civilization, isn't it the ARCHAEOLOGISTS who would be tripping over each other to find proof? It's not a cult, it's a profession, and people get into it because this kind of thing excites them, and they want to be part of a major discovery.
3. Hancock has the entire story laid out in his mind about exactly what happened, and that's not how science is supposed to work. If he simply said "civilization might be older than we think" and left it at that, he'd actually have a point.
4. The "evidence," while perhaps compelling on a case-by-case basis, is strung together haphazardly to fit his preconceived narrative. No other possibilities are seriously considered. It's like your toilet flushing in the next room and immediately assuming it's a ghost.
4. Does he have something to gain from promoting his theories? Yes. Does he have something to lose if proven wrong? Not really.
In conclusion, Hancock is selling us a tantalizing story (and probably making good money from it). He's not a scientist, so he doesn't risk his career by doing so. The "orthodoxy is bad, keep an open mind" argument is not evidence. It proves nothing.
#1 is the main reason I truly detest Hancock.
It takes a special kind of con artist &sshole to demonise the very people whose work makes your cons possible.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, he has zero moral center - he will say whatever keeps those sweet greenbacks flowing in his direction.
"Hancock has the entire story laid out in his mind about exactly what happened, and that's not how science is supposed to work"
This is also exactly what he claims academia are doing with their "dogmatic views" on the subject.
He basically projects everything bad he is doing onto archaeologists.
One of these days some of his mega fans are going to attack those hardworking archaeologists and he wont care one bit.
What a pile of about nonsense, Hancock visits sites that archaeologists can’t properly explain. He has ever reason to distrust them given their behaviour to him and themselves of the last 35 years. You should look at how many careers have been ruined by archaeologists refusal to accept or investigate new evidence. Yes he does have a story laid out in his head he is a journalist offering an alternative point of view by collecting information that science can’t explain. He does consider other possibilities but the evidence at these sites generally doesn’t fit the mainstream narrative so he challenges it. You then get clowns like Milo who tell us Hancock is wrong but don’t offer any form of explanation for the sites they just throw a load of theory out there and pretend it’s the answer.
@@Manbearpig4456 Real scientists don’t offer an explanation until there is enough evidence to prove it.
@@LovedByDax well that would go against every scientific theory ever told then wouldn’t it. There have been a multitude of scientific theories published over the years, how many of Einstein’s theories did he publish?? Your statement is shambolic at best.
Graham Hancock is drying his tears with Joe Rogan's listeners cash after watching this.
??? Rogan doesn't pay his guests.
@@tonedumbharry Book sales
Hancock indirectly and serendipitously sent thousands to your channel. Your well sourced and to the point rebuttal has converted many inquisitive archeological laypersons who came across Hancock's incredible hypothesis (me for one).
I'm sharing with everyone I discussed Hancock with and have bookmarked this episode for instant rebuttal.
You're way too easily influenced, buddy.
@@safarit678 for real
@@show_me_your_kitties many people are who don’t know anything on this subject.
What do you expect?
@@Maximilian-Schmidt yes, what are you trying to get at?
@@safarit678 I'm not your buddy, guy.
I'm not your guy, friend.
I'm not your friend, buddy.
Do you believe Hancock is correct or do you believe this guy?
I like that this guy presents all the different knowledge, theories and possibilities that we know of and gives us an idea of how much support there is for each view and evidence as well as limitations. It seems honest.
I know nothing of Hancock but a quick Google makes it seem that he's not so keen on being completely honest but instead tries to put forward an idea he has of the world and only provides the evidence to support his view instead of being honest and providing all of the evidence even if that goes against his personal position.
Do you follow the evidence wherever it leads or do you prefer to have a guy who's a stoner for decades and doesn't follow the evidence?
I am always super delighted to watch someone concretely discredit Graham Hancock’s nonsense. Makes my whole day.
Except for the part that underwater archaeology has not mapped the bottom of the Mediterranean (look at the search for Alexandria), and the crops? They're all in South America.
@@withnail-and-i . Don’t forget the aliens, the Masonic conspiracy and Atlantida.
@@desiderata8811 Yeah sure, that's a totally logical follow up to my message... Weirdo.
Concretely 😭😂
@@withnail-and-itell graham to do his own diggings....
Graham Hancock had such a huge potential to be an amazing fantasy and historical fiction writer. It's a wasted talent to be honest - he is a creative guy afterall.
Maybe he should take a leaf out of L. Ron Hubbard's book and start a religion.
He is a fiction writer and he knows it He just puts on and act of being a revolutionary thinker fighting "big science" to boost his book sales by marketing to losers who think they're smarter than everyone.
What if he's right?
it's basically what he is but he's tapped into the a larhe swath of the population that feel better blaming "mainstream" scientist and historians for their ignorance
@@thai2go then he should prove it
It feels like GH made an interesting plot for a story and tried to shoehorn it into human history whichever way he could, “oh they don’t have tools… oh I mean of course they didn’t have tools! They were so smart.. that-that they didn’t need tools!!!”
“New unexplained archeological find? You mean the denisovans?.. or should I say, Atlanteans?😮”
what tools would survive 20k years in salt water. titanice well almost be gone in 100 years.
@@MegaDixen Buildings last under saltwater. Bricks also last under water. But we have zero remnants of those in the sea now do we?
@@MegaDixen We’ve found wooden shipwrecks in the Mediterranean dated to the Late Bronze Age (or about 1,300 BCE).
Animal bones and tools have been found in the North Sea dating back thousands of years to the time that the British Isles were connected to mainland Europe. One such find I can recall is the bones of a Homotherium dated to around 28,000 years ago.
@@MegaDixenso whose to say it wasn’t just Bigfoot instead of this Atlantis theory, all since GH sources are pseudoscientists, outdated, or maps from when most continents already looked distorted. It’s an interesting idea on paper but if it can’t hold up to a modicum of criticism, doesn’t it tell you the wools been pulled over your eyes? Do I believe that humans 20,000 years ago were once advanced? Absolutely, you’d be a fool not to. Do I believe there had to be telekinetic Atlanteans who traveled the earth to teach people about the world just because they wanted to? No. Thats ridiculous. Maybe instead of just taking what GH says at face value, actually look at where he gets his information from. Whose to say, I don’t know, left to our own devices for long enough, intelligence breeds progress? Is it so crazy to believe early humans were just more capable then we believe, that instead there’s actual credibility in fantasy story. A story whose writer is embarrassingly upset while his little theory isn’t taken seriously while also explaining why no one will ever find anything about them. The burden of proof has always been on GH and despite his best efforts, he’s only convinced those who aren’t willing to think for themselves.
@@MegaDixen stone tools. In fact, we found stone tools much much older than that
That’s pretty cool that you could get Stephen Hawking to narrate the “objections” parts. Nicely done
I’d say he would fundamentally object to that
I enjoyed hearing him say “fancy a shag”
Was trippin on lsd watching grahams latest netflix series and I thought it was quite thought provoking but something was definately off.. still trippin but doing my research for the truth from real archeologist and the real Human story is even more amazing than what Hancock suggest imo.
Mind=blown
Atleast he has gotten me interested in archeology at all And I applaud Hancock for that atleast.
Real archeologists who are they?? Do you mean those people that proclaim this is how history went only for that to be wrong and then spend the next 30 years stopping science moving forward because they can’t admit they were wrong
The real human story?? seems you’ve tripped and landed with your head up your hole cause no one knows the real human story
@Bingobanana
How did you extract 'knows the entirety of human history' from the comment above.
Clearly the comment is expressing that Hancock's little assertions and appeals to some mysterious fairy-tale people aren't a match for the very human, and very real things we do know about myriad cultural and societal progressions, structures, and histories.
@@Petticca I didn’t extract ‘knows the entirety of human history’ from the comment. I stated the real human story which is what was said in the comment above. You can twist what someone says to suit your own narrative all you want but it makes you look rather pathetic that you can’t read correctly
The best thing about outlandish theories, such as flat earth theory, is that it gives common people the incentive to learn in order to disprove their claims.
There u go... Silver lining
Or double down on their emotions and make a -career- *religion* out of it.
Flat earth? Really? You are really going to do that. You have zero credibility now
Would that it were... I find it more often makes people just not want to Get involved... whatever it is. Easier to let someone else handle the hostility... Hancock mechanism is an impish projection, “mommy, the big boys are picking on me...“ it is how he has built his following, ‘Victimhood.”
@@tomzzo I suppose if you do enough hallucinogens then Hancock seems plausible... otherwise it just shows profound gullibility, if you buy such pretentious made-up crap.
He seems to be forgetting the whole cataclysm thing.
You seem to be forgetting the whole evidence thing.
@@deantunkara1567 no that's exactly my point
Nobody has the chops to debate Carlson on that issue. Overwhelming proof of an almost incomprehensible level of destruction. Easily capable of erasing any and all signs of anything and anyone unfortunate enough to be within range. Not to mention the aftermath and chaos of surviving.
@@gammon1183 they should have been arsed politely then😂😂😂
Except he literally mentioned it in this vid.
Getting a serious Twin Peaks vibe from the robot voice over.
Twin Peaks Robot Objection Voice vs. Nazi Archaeologist.
I’d give a kidney to see that happen.
Graham is fundamentally as sound as L. Ron Hubbard and all the Scientologists; so perhaps he should focus more on religion than Archeology.
Considering the response by devotees of his shite it appears = he has......... - as they react as cretards/flerfs do when their silly claims are challenged 🤨
The Spoon-Mic Show -- starring Spoon-Mic with special guest star What's His Name!
Spoony McMicrophone.Cant listen much longer
I love Dogerland, recent past in relative terms, now its all wet.
Floreansis used tools and inhabited mainland areas also along with pygmy mammoths over million years ago... Come on man, open your mind
That theory is completely underwater.
I love dogging land. Especially on a Saturday evening
It's kind of crazy to think how different the geography was during the last ice age and that humans were around to see it. Japan and Britain were a peninsula, Indonesia was part of Southeast Asia, and Eurasia and North America were connected.
My thought about Doggerland. Up to some point ~ 7000 years ago, give or take, there must have been the lowest point between europe the continent, and what is now the UK. So as the sea rose, at the high tide on some particularly day, the waters on each side of that lowest point, must have met for the first time in human memory. It would have only been brief, but significant none the less. Do you suppose there were some humans there to see that moment? And if they did, how did the conversation go? Something like: "Not sure what's going to happen here, but it certainly does not look good". In the contemporaneous vernacular.
The other point which one would think was quite obvious but seems to have escaped the attention of a large part of the terrified modern population: YES, humanity can actually survive large rises in sea level.
I've listened with interest to Hancock be interviewed, many times. I came away from them thinking he's had too much Ayawauska, and far too much reefer. I just want to say "consider" the age of planet earth. Can you wrap your head around a billion years? A million? I know I can't. According to geologists today, we've had 6 or 7 extinction events, in earth's history. Some of the evidence of those events were displayed in the patterns of days gone by as charcoal, cinders, and ash. These annihilations could have easily removed and destroyed all evidence of a civilization from a "Million" years back. Heat and entropy is destructive. Winds and Floods also contribute to the demise. Especially after a "million" earth years. Humans have through evolution, instincts. Intuition, and as yet undefined areas of consciousness, (sans drugs) and mental abilities, that in time may reveal more depth and power in humans that has been missing for centuries. To dismiss Hancock entirely is a miscalculation. He has opened the door to examining the earths long and storied past. We should react carefully.
@Sf Ski Thanks for that. I've seen pics of that cave drawing and didn't even focus on those stars. Wow. 2 million years ago? A star could have easily destructed. In my humble opinion
We would see evidence of a civilization SOMEWHERE. Lesser amounts of evidence of far less technologically developed civilizations have survived millennia, and so if an advanced ancient civilization existed, we’d know by now. Groundless pseudery
To this day this is seriously one of my all time favorite UA-cam videos. Cheers.
You completely ignored the most important piece of evidence explaining Hancock's theories -- the size of his bank account.
I am a fan of Mr Hancock and I stuck around. This is about my tenth video and I'm really loving this channel! You're convincing me. I was really having fun with the whole lost high technology thing. Thanks for ruining it. Lol. :). I guess its better to find out now after only believing in it a couple years. I've been looking for a channel to challenge these beliefs. Most of the stuff I find on you tube is pro Graham Hancock. I still want to believe some of it.
>Most of the stuff I find on you tube is pro Graham Hancock
Makes for better clickbait
@@nicholaswoollhead6830 yep. Not many people want to put out the true facts even though I really think it’s just as amazing. Guess not as many would click on it though.
Just because most of GH’s claims can be debunked, doesn’t mean that all of them are false. What if civilization was older, just not so technologically advanced as he claims, for instance? There is lot of evidence about the Sphynx specifically that doesn’t necessarily mean it’s made by highly developed ancient civilization, just that it’s older than we think and that we don’t know anything about its true origins.
@@rayhoodoo847 I could believe maybe an older civilization existed without the high technology but the only thing that makes me think that isn’t possible is the crops. To have any kind of large civilization they would have to have had agriculture and I’ve been told we can trace all of our crops back to where and when they were first domesticated. Make sense? It’s hard for me to explain and I’m no scientist but when I heard about all that it seemed true.
Oh and yes I do think it’s possible maybe some hunter gatherer types could have built the Sphinx. They built gobekli tepe so why not?
This America "theory" is one extrapolation too far from nothing.
But the first Hancock video I saw him diving on west coast of India to find a underwater city 75 m under water. This not so impossible at all, considering how much the sea level has risen during last 10,000 years. There are other interesting places like Gulf of Persia and the Black Sea.
I am from Finland and I know the phases of the Baltic sea, there were four. Baltic Ice Lake, Yoldia Sea, Anchylus Lake and finally the Baltic Sea. This because of world ocean level rise and land rising.
In the Black Sea there was first melting water flowing in the fresh water lake so that the lake that flowed to Mediterranean Sea. That flow ended in time , and when the lake was much under the world ocean something happened (earthquake) and the world ocean flowed in. Since that event under 100 m Black Sea us practically dead, SO2. In the deep of the Baltic Sea > 100 m it is the same.
The depth of Persian Gulf is about 50 m, so before the big sea level rise it was above sea level.
Not defending Hancock, but there is lot to find, lot to research when the sea level rise is accepted. The Persian Gulf, Black Sea and the west coast of India would be interesting areas.
I am not an archaeologist, but perhaps a wannabe.
Anyway thanks for your interesting and informative videos.
Kippis.
That would have been 'Underworld', which is probably the closest Hancock has come to an academically rigorous study (which still isn't very close but ...). Interestingly he has said in interviews that it's the hardest he's worked on a project and the one he found the least enjoyable, which I think says a lot about his standards. I've got the book and it's a great read as well as being lavishly illustrated. He does still go way off beam when he starts waffling about latitude and/or longitude but his speculation about the potential for an ancient civilisation that got washed away is interesting. If you can lay your hands on a hardback copy of 'Underworld' cheaply or borrow it from your local library it is worth a read.
Yes there are cities lost to sea level around the world. However they are only developed to the extent to the time they were covered. None are more advanced than any other nearby surviving city.
@@wallyslow I've just checked Hancock's 'Underworld' book. He says that he took special courses and describes the equipment he used. However he also says the structures of the Indian coast were at a depth of 23 metres which is roughly 75 feet so my guess is that the OP is a misremembering of the units of measurement.
@@surfk9836 This is spot on SurfK9, the submerged cities off the Indian coast look to be no more advanced than the Indus Civilization in Pakistan, if not part of that continuum.
@@mithras666 Clearly you didn't read my post properly.
This video fits perfectly with the arrival of the new Netflix series Ancient Apocalypses
A lot of the points he mentioned don't applies to the Netflix series. It seems the Netflix series took out some of his more extreme theories
@@Gringogay he keeps being wrong
@@conner13.c16 who?
I don't belive his more extreme beliefs, but I have an open mind about there being some advanced civilizations further back then we thought possible. And no I'm not talking about psychic pyramid building giants.
@@Gringogay I mean, Graham Hancock is wrong. But I agree with you about being open minded regarding the lost civilization topic, yet there are no carbon emotions recorded during the ice age so I am a bit skeptical about it
The problem with folks like Hancock isn't their basic notion, namely that it is likely that there are periods of human prehistory about which our current concepts are incomplete or incorrect. The problem comes from wild extrapolation of this basic notion.
It is not unreasonable to think that during the last ice age an unknown culture or cultures possibly existed in areas that were inundated by rising sea levels at the end of the ice age. Cultures similar in technology to the Funnel Beaker culture, or Beaded Ware culture or perhaps even the Cucuteni-Trypillia culture might have existed and traded with one another during the last ice age. But to go from that to a globe spanning mother culture that spun off all the ancient civilizations is a huge leap.
Well exactly. Of course there’s so much about prehistory that we don’t know, or don’t understand well. But a society on the scale of the British empire is just too much, we have to be guided by the evidence, not our fantasies.
@@StefanMilo
Exactly. It would be extremely interesting if Hancock's ideas were true - but it would also be extremely interesting to be able to hop aboard the Millennium Falcon and go for a spin. I have a feeling that both are equally likely. 😁
One would also expect to see some traces of their civilization further inland too, just like how there are a bunch of other ancient temples and cities located much further inland. Hancock’s theories rest upon the notion that this lost ancient civilization only existed along the coastlines, but why would that be the case when the fossil record shows a lot of large game further inland? Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence, to which GH has none.
Ockham's razor. While his followers think the lack of evidence is the evidence of the civilization wiped out in the horribly painful and catastrophic event. Ockham's razor suggests an easier and far simpler explanation - there was no civilization in the first place! Case closed, next! ;)
@@StefanMilo I've seen this video before, then lost it and looked around without remembering it, and then finally finding it again somehow because UA-cam.
4:53 polynesians didn't use metal to cross vast amounts of ocean.
true
but there is evidence of their travel
and yet they still leave an archaeological record. Food, construction, genetics, fire, turds.
Neither did the Vikings. Metal nails are rather new. Pegs were the fasteners until recently. Up until the 60's dovetails were the norm for good furniture. Well after a century of screws being common and cheap. The construction industry is still using metal pipe for systems that can be done cheaper with plastics. And I don't mean pvc.
Polynesians were not claimed to have reached technological levels comparable to the pre-industrial British Empire. And yet, even they left a bulk of archaeological evidence. Also, it took the Polynesians thousands of years to colonize parts of the Pacific. There wasn't a regular ocean wide exchange of ideas and technology between let's say Hawaii and Fiji.
@@paulmcclung9383 the vikings used metal though, maybe not for nails in the constuction of boats, but metal in weapons and jewelry. They have left evidence of their presence all over europe.
I'd never heard of Graham Hancock, but this video strongly suggests a familial connection to Matt Hancock.
That made me chortle
in what way?
I used to read Graham Hancock back in the days when he was writing about the Great Pyramid. Some of his points made sense (or at least raised interesting questions); he even gathered a few specialists who concurred with him about some specific details like the water runoff at the basin around the Sphinx. OK, that was fine & interesting. He followed up with his "search" for the Ark of the Covenant - which was a fun travelogue sprinkled with neat details from historical records and old religious documents. But then ... THEN ... then he had to write new books, find new theories, make increasingly grander claims ... with the result being a bizarre mishmash of bogus archaeology. It was sad to see such a smart writer descend into Von Daniken fever-dreams.
You've got that wrong I'm afraid, The Sign and The Seal was his first book on ancient history.
@@Ramasita13 Maybe I'm remembering the order in which I read them, not the order of publication. Still, I think it's a fair assessment that as he has continued to write, his books have strayed farther from the fields of science and technology. I find that some begin with an interesting and accurate kernel, which expands into assumptions, presumptions and suppositions, eventually arriving at a wild claim. It's as if he allows his imagination to overpower rational thought. His enthusiasm and writing skill continue to entertain, but not enlighten.
@@rgnyc well he's an author first and foremost. to blame him for doing author things is not fair I'd wager. but the theories in his books are fun to ponder with.
I wouldn't shame him for wanting to sell books to a broader audience that's more perceptible to a fairytale with reality sprinkled on it either, than a rather bone dry factual piece with tons of scientific evidence for a couple handful of pros.
but the basic idea of smth like that of a more advanced human civilization which was present way before we previously knew would be smth that I wouldn't call bogus if they found evidence of it one day.
not to the point of seafaring on the level of the British Empire... but agriculture and some advanced mathematics? yeah sure. doesn't have to be taught either. pretty sure most ppl discovered similar stuff around the globe without knowing of each other all the time. still do.
as long as ppl have a common ground at which they base their knowledge on - may be advanced chemistry in the modern world, or astronomy in the ancient world - they'll likely end up at a similar conclusion after a certain period of time.
One really has to admit the there’s a lot of crap we cannot explain. And that’s all that matters. So guess we shall. I’ve seen graham, and never once did he say he’s right just questioning things
He often says he is right, He claims Gobekli Tepi is a vindication of his earlier parent culture theory and constantly says he was right when all the experts were wrong. The fact that Gobekli Tepi is hundreds of miles from Egypt and further in time from the pyramid builders than the pyramid builders are to us doesn't seem to bother him. He never addresses arguments that contradict his beliefs like how the Mammoths went extinct because of the younger dryas cataclysm but managed to still not be extinct on Wrangel island a thousand years after the pyramids were built? And wrangel Island is far nearer the supposed impact site.
@@strangetranceoffaith Hancock's belief is that the Great Sphinx and Pyramid are not from the Egyptian Old Kingdom, but a far older civilization. He also believes that Gobekli Tepe isn't the remnants of an advancing society early neolithic, but rather the declined legacy of a much more advanced civilization from earlier that was trying to teach its advanced knowledge to prehistoric humans. He also believes that Gobekli Tepe flipped the "narrative" on its head, rather than provided evidence for one of the main theories of civilization: and that is that the neolithic revolution was the result of an advancing Paleolithic society that had developed a complex society, as opposed to the other major theory which states that the neolithic revolution just kind of happened, and it was required for complex society to exist. What Graham Hancock does is assumes only the second of these two theories can be true, and therefore civilization must have happened much earlier, because otherwise complex societies capable of building Gobekli Tepe couldn't exist. He somewhat ignores that Gobekli Tepe is pre-crop domestication.
Right now the archaeologists are trying to prove that Gobekli Tepe was a cultural center of the society that domesticated wheat. One of the major steps in the development of human society. Graham Hancock somewhat dismisses the relevance of this. I actually did read two of his books: Fingerprints and Magicians. I think he's an enjoyable writer to read, but he's full of ******
The spoon is what allows him to hide his illuminate lizard form
hes trying to spoon feed us!
Poop scoop
That yard is probably scattered with all forms of lizards
But lizards don't usually glow in the dark.
"Think about how little we know about the Denisovans" that's exactly why he talks about them
The who?
@@sadhu7191 No, not the British rock band, he means the ancient Hominid.
Yet, he keeps repeating that those are his ideas and theories. Not proven.
@@trallius1173 Exactly, ideas and theories, not proven
@@trallius1173 maybe instead of just laughing at Hancock, these big Bois archeologists can spend more time finding out about them.
I agree with most of your points but it's still Ironic...I would never have searched for the Younger Dryus or found your Channel had it not been for Hancock's JRE episodes.
Younger dryus isnt ab important part of history really, all these ancient aliens guys make it sound way worse then it was lol
@@ugadugaga4972 The Ancient Alien Guys aren't the Younger Dryus guys....you thought your comment was way smarter than it was...
@@DG-iw3yw Muricans, can speak only one language and can't even speak that right. Go pick a dictionary chum
@@DG-iw3yw "And yet "smarter" isn't a real word"
'facepalm'
Smart
/smɑːt/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
comparative adjective: *smarter*
Source: Oxford Languages.
And it's people like you that call Graham Hancock a fool. Very bad attempt there champ.
There are underwater cities tho
Cthulhu fhtagn!
It stand to reason that if metropolises can exist under air, then they must exist under water, under the crust of the earth, underneath the mantle, underneath the outer core
Cities just pop up fully formed everywhere regardless of intelligent intervention as part of the convenience principle which allows easy habitation for the propagation of cosmic life
Yes there are
true because most ancient civilizations are deep under the oceans now and are completely lost to us.
@@letyvasquez2025 That’s not what he’s implying...
SPOON!
SpOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoOoN!!
I think it’s likely we have “lost” much, if not most of our history, but the “spiritual” idea is tenuous at best. I enjoy Hancock’s work, but take it all with a grain of salt. I find the impact hypothesis to be compelling, but the idea that it was on par with pre-industrial Britain is extremely unlikely.
I"m willing to reject all that "spiritual" conjecture, but can he explain the levels of technology shown at the South American sites and the old artifacts in Egypt? Of course he can't. The rest of his denials are based on "Well, we've already proven A, B, and C.", and refusing to consider that those "proven" facts may be, and should be, subjected to change when confronted with new evidence. I disagree that Archaeology is a paragon of open-mindedness, when I see the savage, ad hominem attacks on anyone who disputes the "Clovis First" orthodoxy. Or, for that matter, the Concentric Out of Africa human dispersal "fact".
Any challenge to the orthodoxy seem to meet with a solid wall of "Well, that just can't be." from department heads and conference organizers. That kind of professional force brought against people who discover inconvenient science sure as hell doesn't make the field seem "willing to change with new evidence".
But who knows? If the findings of the field stay firmly on "the right side of history", he may someday get the Seal as an Inquisitor Scientifica Hereticus and be able to use more forceful means to dismiss people like Hancock.
Agreed. Until we have actual science proof. Its to be considered as a thought project and interesting fiction/story.
@@bradgregory6995 hes in the business of making money thats all he is
See I like Hancock and was and am still fascinated by his hypothetical history but videos like this to keep me grounded are still a very valuable resource to have available. Thanks Stephan!
I can't think of very many more amazing, fantastic things than Hancocks theory being correct. That would be super cool. But there's myriad reasons to think it's wrong, and zero reasons to think it's right.
Stefan's point about there not having been domesticated foods from the Americas in Afro-Eurasia prior to Europeans invading the Americas (and the reverse, no einkorn wheat or barley in the Americas) is a brutal knock-out of an argument. If Hancock were right, the Spaniards should have thought, upon arriving to the Americas, "wow, cool, they have maize here also."
@@cacogenicist yeah I don’t think he’s right. I just said his theories were fascinating. It’s all hypothetical history. I don’t need convincing he’s wrong when it’s something I already know to be the case.
@@tonytonedeaf8981 "hypothetical history" , so pure fiction, just like "alternative facts".
@@silvrtaln pretty much yeah. Your the second person to think I believe Hancock was correct. When in fact I don’t even in the slightest. Must be a low iq problem
"See I like Hancock..." and why would you like a liar? He is asserting that which is not evidently true as fact, knowingly spreading unsubstantiated claims for profit.
I actually find Graham Hancock's talks entertaining, and I kinda like him. Some of his ideas are at least interesting to ponder (esp the Sphinx theories), but my BS detector is also constantly going off when I watch vids of him, and I've always worried about non-scientific persons who are also watching with their minds a bit *too* open...
Good luck on your tennis comeback
Yes I agree
Can I use this comment as my own? Exactly what I think basically. Everytime he talks about "the established groups are trying to suppress this information" is when I take him a notch down in my mind.
It’s like debunking Harry Potter.
Hilarious comment
Muggle
the problem is he didn't debunk anything
@@fightfannerd2078 yes he did. You weren't listening.
@@fightfannerd2078 You just can't accept the truth
That Elon guy suggests a good goal for success is to know that you are always wrong to some degree and to try and become less wrong.
If I did choose to believe this, then the idea of questioning the most foundational concepts in a given field (archeology included) would seem the best way to become more accurate. Questioning my most foundational assumptions would seem a good place to start as the consideration of alternative concepts could potentially avail me to new information or a new way of understanding information, whereas if I were to have an
unwillingness to suspend my stance on my longstanding concept my progress would be limited to obtaining it from others or when large and obvious examples are revealed to disprove old ideas.
To know you don’t know, what a gift.
Hancock is obviously far more educated on this subject than you my freind.
How do you know you don't know? If you don't know you might be wrong and have known all along?
It's one thing to question. It's another to propose different answers that contradict all the evidence. That's the sort of "questioning" and "open-minded thinking" flat earthers engage in.
That's not what knowing what you don't know is, lol. "Knowing what you don't know" refers to understanding that there is a specific idea or problems that you can identify but are currently unable to conquer it. Its a matter of needing more knowledge not less.
However, the same arguments would have been made about Gobleki Tepe? If there was a civilization in 9000BC capable of constructing a megalithic complex of this scale, we would have found evidence of it by now. Before the discovery of Gobleki Tepe, archaeologists concluded that its impossible. They argued that the sphinx cannot be from 9000bc, because a megalithic site simply does not exist in 9000bc.
So it's better to assume something before the evidence is produced?
@@jellyrollthunder3625 The rational position would be to admit that we don't really know for sure. If the established pre-historical timeline is constantly being overturned (e.g. G.Tepe, pre-clovis sites), how reliable is the latest one? It means that the current body of archeological evidence is very incomplete. "We would have found evidence of it by now" is a mistake. The latest accepted timeline is just speculation, but archeologists constantly make the mistake of taking it as established dogmatic fact.
@@jellyrollthunder3625 One example was a Scientific American article by Michael Shermer attacking Hancock. Even though only 10% of Goblekli Tepe was excavated, Shermer concluded that it was "a ceremonial religious site, not a city-there is no evidence that anyone lived there." There was a strong reluctance to allow for the possibility of domestication because it further contradicts established dogma and timeline. Soon after, evidence of domestication was found - rainwater harvesting, grinding stones, dwellings. We now think that Goblekli Tepe was a permanent settlement.
Same for the discovery of pre-clovis sites, new theories were at first ridiculed because it contradicted "established facts".
@@bierdlll jelly has gone quiet all of a sudden?
what archaeologist said this was impossible before the discovery of Gobekli Tepe? Nevali Cori was discovered 10 years prior and dated 8400 bce. also the walls of Jerico were originally dated to be 9000 bce in 1952. That's also not why they think the Sphinx is 4500 years old "because a megalithic site simply does not exist in 9000bc" it's thought to be modelled after a specific emperor. the only argument to support it saying stone doesn't erode that quickly as if sandstorms doent erode stone (which was originally claimed by a 1950's french mystic Schwaller de Lubicz)
Hancock supporting comments incoming...
That shed behind me is a comment proof bunker. I'm just going to ride it out with my bourbons.
Im not into the spiritual aspects of Hancocks ideas, but I do believe that there is more civilizations we haven't discovered. I want believe that Atlantis is real and find it one day, but I do not think they were anything like Hancock makes them out to be.
Yeah I think he has a point on the tantalizing evidence of Pleistocene civilization but then makes himself look absurd by going down this hippie-spiritual path. He needs to stick with the anomalously early mathematics and astronomical knowledge and the weird underwater ruins and then say: "Look, we know something was there. We know something happened. Let's not speculate, let's discover."
"Atlantis" has been discovered. Crete was home to the ancient and extremely advanced bronze age minoan civilization, a volcano erupted and caused a huge Tsunami which destroyed large parts of the Civ. HENCE: "Posiedon was mad" This may have contributed to the later decline, and the ancient civ was mostly forgotten until the 19th century? when it was rediscoved. Dates and legends largely corroborate this hypothesis.
Concerning Atlantis, if you consider everything Plato said, it can only be in one place : the Azores islands. Randall Carlson makes a very strong argument of that, backed up with a ton of evidence that he discusses over a 5 parts long podcast on his UA-cam channel, you should go check it out ! I have been looking for the city myself and read about many hypothesis for years and I think that this one is definitely the final pick !
@@thecheaperthebetter4477 Ancient guys Plato and Solon have debunked that claim. They never said it was Crete. The descriptions of Atlantis, whether or not it existed, is NOT Crete. I don't know where the Crete claim comes from, but there are 0 historical sources which say its Crete. If we get clues from Plato, Atlantis should be somewhere in the Atlantic, or west Afrca. We could also get clues from copies of ancient maps. In those maps, you sometimes see "Atlantis" and its NOT Crete.
@@IrritatorXleXretour I agree, if Atlantis existed it has to be in the Azores, it fits very well with Plato's description
Satisfying to watch this, I’ve never understood the appeal of Hancock and have been frustrated on other videos where he has appeared (such as JRE) where he was hardly challenged.
Couldn't agree with you more. Including with your closing statement.
Haha! Your videos are deeeeeply entertaining! Love it! Easy subscription from me, sir! Keep it up!
What gets me is how upset the Hancock lapriders get when you have a legit objection. It’s like there’s this gnostic fantasy in their heads that only they know the secret truth.
Because of the propensity of human nature to seek prophets
Because humans need prophets.
He made a joke about Gobekli Tepe but then totally ignored it. How does that site fit the historical time line?
Göbekli Tepe expands our understanding of the ancients... But it's an absurd stretch from that to woo woo (like aliens or angels or a psychic civilization)
Not the point of this video. There are other non-woo videos on UA-cam that discuss it.
Just fine. It caused a few assumptions to have to shift a bit - less in response to general timing than in terms of which developments preceded which others - but nothing remotely like positing a globe-spanning civilization during the Paleolithic. We always knew people had started growing crops and developing larger and more complex communities in some form by around 10,000 BC.
Göbekli Tepe shows us that Neolithic people build huge stone structures. We already knew this! We just have to push back the date when they started. And guess what (despite what Hancock likes to say) acheologists have done this, with great exitement and willingness - that is; changed their views on Neolithic people.
What Hancock does is, rather condescendingly, saying “hunter gathers couldn’t have build this without help/instructions”. This is just an assumption. But a necessary one, because if they actually were capable and smart, then we don’t need an old lost civilisation to teach them this stuff - of course, Hancock does not actually have any evidence.
So, no…. Göbekli Tepe did not “fit the timeline”, but we changed the timeline. That is LITERALLY what archeology does. There’s no mystery. No acheological junta oppressing Hancock. What there is of course, is an objection to Hancock using all that we yet do NOT know of Göbekli Tepe and other sites as an excuse to say “well survivors of an Atlantis like civilsation did that”.
An Ice Age civilization would make for an excellent Science Fiction story.
Cool video! I'm curious, as there is an interesting proposal around the Sphinx water erosion - why do you say that sounds implausible?
ua-cam.com/video/DaJWEjimeDM/v-deo.html
What about the underwater pyramids on the coast of Japan and in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean, the Azores. Same pyramids found in the Amazon as in China.
Where is the historical account on any of this?
@Rienk Kroese I just looked up the Japanese pyramids (yonaguni). For what it's worth, Robert Schoch and John Anthony West have said that they think they're naturally occurring. And those 2 typically Side with Hancock's worldview. I also saw some pictures of underwater pyramids but they looked cgi or doctored or whatever.
Funny how the psychic ubermensch that had a globe-wide civilization were completly obliterated and wiped off the surface of the earth because of a meteorite and the hunter-gatherers just went by as if nothing happened. Who's the superior culture now ?
Hancock explained how that makes sense and one has to agree to some extent.
The people of this civilisation didn’t manage to adapt to the environmental changes that this impact caused while hunter-gatherers had the skills to survive off the lands and could deal with this catastrophe much better because of that.
Similar to how you would expect hunter-gatherers to survive in a world where all our modern supply chains suddenly broke down while the average civilised person would die due to us not knowing how to survive.
A meteor impact of that scale would cause a „nuclear winter“ and so a culture that relies on agriculture to feed itself would die out much quicker than a culture in which the people know how to survive in the wild.
Who do you think is better suited to survive an environmental crisis - middle class New York city residents, or a tribe of hunter gatherers?
The average New Yorker cant start a fire, hunt, fish, fabricate tools or tell you what the tree in their own backyard is while hunter gatherers dont have a choice they need to know these things
They're so super advanced that they also left no possible trace of their existence within any measurable proxy. Maybe the title 'Fingerprints of the Gods' is apt, because just like God, you cannot demonstrate that they do not exist so therefore we now have no choice but to believe in the prophet Hancock, who is the only one that knows of their existence.
Also I like how everyone is debating about how this society collapsed, when there is no proof that they ever existed. You might as well speculate as to the reproductive processes of Digimon, because it has about as much merit.
@@TheSirPrise proof of their existence is not required because the question is not whether a an advanced society existed but where the development of society begins and the end of barbarism ends there is no evidence of many societies on earth and yet they were there and their advancement is subjective
so advanced they could make a globe spanning fleet of boats and leave no trace. so advanced they could build all those megalithic sites without leaving a single tool behind. so advanced they had mapped the slow movement of the stars across millennia.
also apparently too advanced to be bothered passing on the secret of soap.
@@AulisVaara I don't disagree at all. My comment was meant to imply something as everyday useful as basic sanitation could have had a titanic impact on day to day quality of life. Soap is fairly easy to make, a pyramid or an ocean crossing boat not as much.
@Old Baron Archaeology should spend more time trying to find out if the ideas are true than trying to disprove them. The archaeological record cannot be assumed to represent anywhere near the whole story, and what we do have already poses many questions that the commonly agreed upon narrative cannot explain. That's why Hancock and colleagues work is important, and why the onslaught of vitriol they receive is only detrimental to humanity itself
I posted a comment. Then I looked at the other comments that have stacked up these past few years... OMG!
May I interject that Stefan has definitely set the tone with his excellent voice, delivery, choice backdrop and attire... AND the classic spoon (much missed)!
This has got to be, by it's very debased delivery, one of the best rebuttals of woo on the internet. AN ABSOLUTE CLASSIC😂😅😂
It had me chuckling and chugging at least half a bottle of wine. So, I have to say:
Guys, basically Handcock started off interesting enough to get on Rogan (bless his heart, I love him), but not too controversial and then, dragging the likes of Randall & co. Into the pit with him, transmogrified into full on con artist pushing this Atlantean mythological superrace BS; he even got onto Netflix! Shame.
...so I was amazed, perusing the comments herein, how many people are into this woo stuff.
They don't believe in genetics, methodology, fieldwork, research, peer review, I mean I could go on and on.
ARE WE ALL GOING CRAZY? Enough. Enough. Archeaology is complicated enough without this obscure, obscurantist cloud.
I invite you all:
Think of it like polishing a beautiful, old, antique, but dirty mirror. At first it's fuzzy though we can make out some of the shapes in the reflection. A head, an arm. We rub more, make it clearer and now the picture gets sharper. Fingers! Nails...
We see more and more details , but we can never hope to clean it perfectly. There are quite a few spots where the backing flaked off.
Of course we can touch it up (like the awesome tool modern genetics has become to archaeology) but it will never be perfect, however we ARE getting a clearer picture of ourselves, despite being notoriously underfunded!
Handcock wants to break the mirror!😢
If you are interested in archeaology then study the subject, listen to more people and enjoy learning about this fascinating fast evolving world we all sprung from together through pre-history.
Help polish the mirror.
Don't just listen to Handcock.
Peace.
By the way, hic, I'm not an archaeologist but I did a few credits while studying geophysics. Sorry, I'm getting drunk... 😋
I'm planning a bike trip through a tunnel to the Richat Structure and the surroundings. Anyone game?Possibly YT material? Should be fun. Shoutout to Bruce Fordyce and Gavin if you read this😊
Did you ever sober up? 😂
It's impossible to argue with hancocks disciples because they aren't interested in reality or truth but in hancocks fantasy Atlantis bullcrap, and until every square meter of earth is excavated they'll use the god of the gaps argument to say "see it's still possible you can't disprove it because we haven't looked absolutely everywhere yet"
Same grift hancock had in the mars mystery - we haven't landed on mars yet so it's still possible
@@steventhompson399 Yep. I tried to explain sampling to one, I might as well have been talking to my cat.
@@Oddball5.0 lol, that feeling when you attempt to communicate but you know it's not working...
@@steventhompson399 The hatred they have toward archaeologists is incredible.
So let me ask this, on a serious note! Do primary sources no longer matter in the study of history? Or is it scholars that have their interests and reputations invested in a collective narrative? Would cuneiform tablets not be considered primary? Not according to historians! The repetition and consistency within these refutes our historical doctrine but don't let that get your way!! Again with primary accounts and assessments of the Americas, especially South America, pre colonization, those don't count either! Along very little to no digs being done! Oh and that the magnitude and scale of Gobekli Tepi and other areas being discovered in surrounding areas, were built by wandering nomadic, hunters and gatherers totally makes sense too! Don't forget how Hancock was laughed at about when he discussed the idea of a meteor striking the North America that caused the sea levels to rise 30 feet within days and 300 feet within a very short period of time. Now proven! Prominent geologists writing papers refuting the dating of Sphinx!! Sorry but if you believe that there isn't a vested interest in keeping the status quo in History, then you have bought in!! I'm sure that many with blindly disagree but delve deeper!! Just because it suits your comfort zone, it doesn't make it the truth!
...
Okay, firstly primary sources are considered. However, like eyewitness testimony in court, they're often viewed as unreliable and need to be corroborated. This is why we don't believe dragons are real despite numerous stories of men fighting dragons.
Secondly, there are plenty of digs being done, particularly across the Americas. As a huge enthusiast of Folsom Culture Paleoindian archaeology, I find it offensive that people keep peddling Hancock's bullshit about "the archaeological paradigm." We learn new things about Paleoindians every day. Hancock just refuses to acknowledge this because none of what we learn supports it.
Gobekli Tepe was not necessarily built by "wandering nomadic" hunters and gatherers. It was possibly built during the transition to agriculture, and thus you may have had people in certain areas far longer and using the same spiritual sites for great amounts of time.
Hancock's crater is nowhere near proven. Yes, there is a crater in Greenland. Fun fact: all we know is that it is younger than about 2 million years. That does not mean that it hit the Earth 12,000 years ago. Also, Hancock's original claim is that there wasn't a crater and we would never find one because it hit the ice sheet, so the crater vaporized. Funny how he changed his tune once a crater was discovered.
Sphinx water erosion hypothesis is nonsense. There's no backing to it, and the geologist who makes these claims regularly debunks himself. It's kind of sad.
When people tell you to "open a mind," please don't use a crowbar. It makes you spout stupid bullshit like your comment and you look really ignorant.
Are you familiar with Asha Logos? I highly recommend his channel. His 'Our Subverted History' series is excellent.
@@echoecho3155 he actually never claimed that the crater in greenland has been proven to be 12000 yo. He specifically says that he suspects it to be so but its not proven yet.he even says more research is needed to pinpoint what it is and when it happened. He uses other things as evidence of what happened. If hancock was to twist archaelogical studies like you baffoons twist his words he would be flipping burgers by now. Its pathetic how much you lie about his claims. Also notice how unsure ure terminology is when u talk about gobekli-tepe. Like "its not necessarily to be these nomadic tribes" and " its possibly done during the transition from huter-gatherer"... why so unsure?? Is it perhaps that there is something inconclusive about it? Perhaps some things arent adding up? So unsure about the topic but yet so surely discredit someone elses theories... Just an observation thats all. I dont think u are giving hancock the credit to even properly listen to what he says. He speaks in very hypothetical terms...
Why would we listen to a delusional hack like Hancock?
@@echoecho3155 It's a relief to see there's other sane people in the world.
“Bollocks I say, bollocks” well I subscribed lmao
5:35 they're finding large dwellings in south America using lidar
Yeah, but those are all 800-2000 years old, not 12,000+ years old.
They find them every few years lidar just makes it easy to find them.ua-cam.com/video/j9w-i5oZqaQ/v-deo.html
And when archaeologists find ruins completely beyond the ability of the Incas to have constructed, and the Inca descendants say "Uh, sure, we built all that." Archaeologist jump right on it. (Even though the oldest Inca traditions say "No, man, some kinda god-like beings built that stuff.")
And then they portray themselves as "scientists" and Hancock as a "quack". I remain unimpressed.
Any society building anything in the environment of the Amazon, out of organic materials, is not going to have anything survive 12,000 years. You probably think ancient advanced civilizations only formed in places where the environment would preserve their works and artifacts.
Just dumb luck for the Archaeologists, right?
@@MrJonsonville5 noshit sherlock. Evidence for Sumer and Indus civic barely survive under dry condition. Earth and plant fill up thing.
No one try to look before because it ain't possible and now we have evidence only because of foken deforestation.
Archaeology is about clues and what if. It don't have fix container in like real science physics and math.
I had to watch this audio only. That spoon kept making me bust up laughing.
Objection 1: where is the stuff? My objection to this is that were not done looking. Were finding stuff all the time and constantly having to push back dates further into the past.
Objection 2: if sea levels were lower there would be much more land mass to hop across. So the argument that it's hard to believe that a civilization could travel the globe because of the distance is silly.
Objection 3: why is it ridiculous to believe a ancient civilization could have a different diet? You say they should have seen the benefit of having a wide variety of crops but make no mention of how the climate at that time may have limited the options
Objection 4: genetic mixing between aboriginal Australians and south Americans. How? You presented evidence but claim it if we're accurate there would be more. How much more do you need?
Objection 5: just because the picture isn't complete doesn't mean you should dismiss it entirely. The shared DNA between south Americans and aboriginal Australians is your trans Pacific evidence.
Most of your arguments end in "it's stupid" or "I don't think so" which is weak. You wouldn't have to say that had you argued your points better.
I like Graham Hancock. I take his point of view with a grain of salt. The biggest thing I have learnt from him is that most people are too arrogant to let their ideas be challenged. It exposes a lot of hipocracy. I wish you could have come up with better answers.
When you talked about isolated crop development I was all in
You can cross oceans with stone age technology. Travel for trade or seasonal migration happens. A stoneage transcontinental network seems unlikely, but I wouldn't dismiss it. It's fun and useful to explore unlikely scenarios. Great video as always.
I agree with this. There is some evidence that the polynesians reached south america with primitive technology. However, what these advanced lost civilization theorists are often claiming is that there was a culture far more advanced than the ancient egyptians, Mesopotamian, Inca, etc, and they were the ones who actually constructed these megalithic sites. Many of them claim they had machinery, electricity, levitation devices, lasers, etc, in order to move and cut the stones. That really is nonsense. We do know who built those sites and a lot about how they did it.
Except, they seem to have left nothing during their travels.
You can, but it is a lot harder to survive such a journey without adequate supplies which seems unlikely using stone age rafts.
Even if they lived only on plentiful raw fish found in the sea they would still need a lot of fresh water.
Water is essential beyond even food for survival on a long sea voyage.
I suppose it is not impossible that they could have filtered saltwater through some kind of cloth to get barely drinkable water - but desalination isn't expensive today for no reason.
@@TonyTrupp well we actually just dont know how they were built perfect example is the sphinx where the aging and corrosion of the stone nowhere near matches that of the great pyramids
"They travelled everywhere teaching us agriculture, astrology" ??
Astrology.. really ?
While I now disagree with Graham Hancock, I can't deny how important my first hearing him speak was for getting me to have a healthier spiritual outlook on my life and the world
When an "archeologist" or any other scientist/researcher spends more time on podcasts and other shows being angry about people not believing him/her rather than doing his research, you can already conclude that he's there only for the buzz. We have a very funny specimen of them here in France called Jacques Grimault. Spoiler: It always leads to Aliens in the end...
Hancock has no trianing whatsoever, he just connects dots that are actually a Rorschach print
Thank you for introducing me to this Hancock fellow. I’m a great recreational lover of crackpottery. I’ll enjoy this
Not gonna lie, his theories may be far removed from reality, but they are pretty entertaining. There are about 10 hours of podcast interviews with Joe Rogan on UA-cam that make good background noise.
There's a chocolate teapot floating around the sun?
Siiiiiiiii ! ⚗️🌞⚗️
I just read America Before and that is not a great description of that book. And you critiquing his ideas based off of another critics description (that is biased ) is very silly, you haven’t read Hancock’s book but you want to comment on the info he’s presenting? there’s nothing flawed with that plan?
Fiction is fiction. Clearly you enjoy a good story. Nothing wrong with that, but it isn't real. Hancock is an author, publicising fantasy for money and notoriety.
You know where you will never find Stephan Milo? In the field. The type of guy who is great at repeating facts from other people.
Darn those people who like to repeat facts!!!
@@rockysexton8720 The issue is that there are very few “facts” in regards to prehistory. I am in my late 30s and the “facts” surrounding our history have changed dramatically during my short life.
@@aprichman i agree, even without knowing grahams work, ive seen big inconsistancies in the record, just the official history about the pyrimids makes me not want to believe anything the academia say, how can they pretend just by authority afirms the ways thoses structures were build, they even say egiptcians didnt know about the wheel, no matter how manny titles they have i wont belive em without prove and they have facts but that do not prove their conclusions,
A lot of people defending Hancock don't have the slightest idea what evidence is. "But what about all the evidence!" Just because a con man says it's evidence, doesn't mean it is.
Evidence is evidence. Doesn't matter who points to it.
@@nazarkinash8580 Too bad Hancock doesn't have any.
@@MG-if2rp that's fine for you to think that. At this point people can at least start to have a conversarion
@@nazarkinash8580 Start a conversation about what? Pseudoscience and make believe? Hancock is making absurd claims based on childish interpretations of archeology. Imagine if someone said that because Egyptian Hieroglyphs are real, that means Santa Clause is also real. That's Graham Hancock logic.
@@MG-if2rp That's the stupidest strawman ever
I think your objections are fair and make sense. I love listening to Hancock because he's a fun and passionate guy, but the simple fact that he always finds himself on the fringes with virtually every historical topic should tell you a lot. Oh, the plastic spoon was a nice touch. Cheers.
@@JohnSmith-xf6nb, I probably should have just said that. Cheers
Hancock is also EXTREMELY antisemetic and promotes Islamophobia. He is NOT a good man.
Maniac
And that he was originally a science fiction writer, before he started to reframe his working as conveying some hidden truth that’s being suppressed by a conspiracy of evil academics.
@My names Jeff, if there was actual incontrovertible evidence, science would have accepted it. 99.99% of the time that is the case. I would know, I'm an evolutionary biologist. Cheers.
Great to see a critique from before the Netflix Show
Let's be real, if psychic gurus spread their knowledge of advanced civilization to the Earth then we would have seen evidence for a death metal phase back when they were still in high school.
I think we’re looking for goth phase followed by hippie phase.
What are you talking about ?
You’re right. The evidence just isn’t there. We have yet to unearth a pre-younger dryas Hot Topic
I liked Ancient Apocalypse. My skeptic BS detector beeped a lot while I was watching it. Your long vid also provided a lot of useful context about where Hancock goes off the rails. But in his defense, he's popularizing a lot of good info. I did not know about a lot of those sites he features. And he keeps the woo-woo crackpot stuff to a minimum. Haven't read his books, but I saw him on Rogan where he does let his freak flag fly, so I was glad he kept most of that out of the TV show. It might be that humans need a good mystery/conspiracy story to keep us interested in a dry, obscure academic topic. Maybe this show drives more attention and money for research.
Would follow u on yelp. 10/10 review of your review
Graham is right. Source: I am the last of psychic Atlanteans.
I've no idea about Hancock. BUT, i have one HUGE objection to much of the arguments about "ancient advanced civilisations".
Ancient according to WHO? Compared to WHEN?
Just because Plato describes and "advanced civilisation" doesn't mean it would be advanced compared to TODAY, i mean seriously, anyone who thinks that needs to first explain how Plato would have any idea about the world thousands of years after his death!
HOWEVER, the basic concept that there MAY have been cultures "peaking" a lot higher than what was normal for their time of existance and then pretty much disappears without much trace?
I would say that THAT is entirely possible, maybe even plausible to have happened at least once in history.
Because lets face it, if something managed to achieve, oversimplified, a Rome 0AD culture 6 thousand years ago, what's the probability that anything from that was left behind to be found? Like the pharao tombs, anything surviving whatever destroyed the culture would be prime plunder targets for everyone who ever heard even a whisper about the culture at its prime.
What if the only traces of such a culture is currently in the middle of the North Sea, ie Doggerland, or what if it's buried deep under some existing large city?
Or for another variation, what if a culture developed a shipbuilding style like the vikings and used it to travel around a lot, you might find extremely vague traces in regional DNA, but since those could have happened by overland or simpler means of travel by sea, it would be impossible to figure out the difference.
And considering how exceptionally hard it is to find traces of such ships even just a thousand years old? The probability that we would ever find such from say, 5 thousand BC, is essentially zero.
And to keep going on the "ships" theme, we do for example already know of at least one culture that DID build something far beyond what we know anything real about. Julius Caesar's battles with the Veneti mention their great troubles with their ships, as they were too big to board.
And too big to board for Roman warships of the time, that puts their minimum size as VERY BIG.
Yet we know absolutely nothing about those ships and barely anything even about the people.
.
Now, i haven't even started looking at the actual video yet, that will have to wait, because now it's morning and i have to sleep.
Right, less than 4 minutes in and i can easily say that i will never be a fan of Hancock.
Well… Well, well, well… Let me say, like many controversial figures; I quite enjoy Hancock’s work for the fact that it isn’t what we are usually told. He does lay out; for the most part, a very compelling “What if?” narrative. However, I’ve felt that that’s all it is. It is fun to think and wonder. What DON’T we know? Especially compared to what we THINK we know. Aside from the telekinetic explanations and the like; I’ve always found Graham Hancock’s work at the VERY least worth a read. But, all that aside; you quite took his thesis’s to task. Very, very impactful. Plenty of things I never considered but seem so obvious; which is probably why a) His work intrigues me and b) I am no historian/ paleontologist. However your videos lay out the counter arguments so simply and obviously. Regardless of where we came from, how we got here, and what are past is I truly feel like we are lucky and this existence is magical in the sense that regardless of what you believe none of it TRULY makes sense to our brains. Thank you, keep up the good work.
Don't let what you think is possible determine what is actually or could possible
dont draw conclusions on stuff soley based on the possibility of it existing. literally anything could exist.
Shows the difference between talking about ideas and just talking about other people
Thank you for this video, great to hear an informed view.
Also as a production person I love the Lav on a spoon idea, never thought of that one, going with sideing lav into a small PVC tube for a duel purpose as a lav for single standups and in "stick mic" form for man on the street interviewing. I'm going to use that , btw have you tried putting the capsule on the inside curve of the spoon to reflect/block external noise? and if you use a metal spoon instead, will if give some positive or negative resonance. I've now got an experiment of my own in mind :) as this might end up being a great (what I call) guerilla without a dime tip
The “stuff” is everywhere- but metal oxidizes quickly and rust away- leave a car sitting in your front yard for 100 or 500 years it will be nothing left. There are sooo many cities that have been re-discovered with megaliths that are machined and we give credit to the civilization that preside in the are at the time.
Egyptians, the Aztecs, the native Americans all say when asked about the structures that exist in the area they live in they say-“ they were here when we got here”
Also as far as farming- the rainforest are man made the soil is there is manmade and after those civilizations were wiped out the fields without being attended to started to grow wildly because of the soil that was used to grow crops then.
Marvin Becker what evidence do you have to show that the pyramids were built in the 4th dynasty? There’s evidence to show that there were repairs or some reconstruction of them- but I haven’t seen evidence of building them.
And the people of Teotihicaun and the Mayans and Olmecs did build at these sites- but they merely tried to replicate and built over the already existing structures- anyone can see there are 2 totally different types of construction the bottom being way more advanced than that on top which is a poor copy of the bottom construction type.
Marvin Becker as far as the Roman coins they were made of copper, gold and silver alloys. Which do not oxidize. Any type of machining tools can’t be made from such soft materials,
And require iron or steel which heavily oxidizes. Coins and tools are totally different.
If the claim is “there was an advanced global civilization that had telepathic powers and more advanced technology than our own” I agree with this dismantling.
If the claim is “select groups of individuals were able to cross oceans long before the mass migration via the land bridge and probably created megalithic architecture that has been swallowed by Earth via natural disasters and climate change” that’s entirely different and 100% plausible.
We have no fucking clue what would happen to Earth today if a cataclysmic comet or solar storm hit us. Something that makes Tunguska look like a pebble.
If humans have been “anatomically modern” for hundreds of thousands of years I think it’s perfectly reasonable that there could have been civilizations the evidence for which is buried under a mile of debris.
Plausible perhaps but it's not just that there's no evidence for it, it's disproven by the evidence that exists. Hancock argues for a cataclysm that would have wiped out the civilization pre Younger Dryas in his latest series. The archaeology suggests nothing of the sort: continuity of the material culture that came before Clovis and after.
I've looked at the temperature graphs for the last 100,000 years. There are some periods of stable-ish temps that may have allowd the modern human to set down more permanent roots. Do I think they built a super empire. No. But I find it plausible that there are structures out there from over 10,000 years ago. Not big ones. Huts and stuff maybe a standing stone or two.
We keep being told that we have an unpresidented stable temperature at the moment but I don't think people realise how crazy it is. It's practicly flat. Makes me even more worried about global warming. People just assume that it will all work out. It very well might not.
Actually, large bollide collision events DO leave a significant mark in the geological record, from tsunami events to Iridium anomalies. Hancock clai.s that the Younger Dryas was cataclysmic event of global proportions that wiped civilizations off the planet, yet there is scant evidence of this and plenty of evidence that it never happened at all.
@@zarhanfastfire3209 but there’s plenty of evidence that points towards serious cosmic impacts to kick start the younger dryas. So as the guy that wrote the comment said it’s certainly plausible and no archeology doesn’t show continuity. The amount of things that pop up all over the world gobekli Tepe, the 40,000 and older cave art in various locations, the 12,000 year old aboriginal Australian dna found in the Amazon, what they are now finding in the Amazon certainly doesn’t not show any form of continuity in the archaeology story.
@Bingobanana
If you claim that there's "plenty of evidence", my question becomes how do _you_ know this?
It's going to come down to either:
The study, research and published findings from the scientific experts in the relevant fields.
Or it is not.
If this plethora of evidence is being presented correctly, it should be accurately representing the _current scientific consensus_ of the expert's who are the _source_ of this "plenty of evidence" for event X, or Y, or whatever. In other words, those scientists would be the ones making the claim about their own findings, and moreover their work will have been transparent, and accessible to the rest of their field, and there would be a general consensus that the conclusions are drawn correctly from the evidence.
If you have anyone pointing out how much "evidence" there is for something that _no one else_ who is actually expert enough to evaluate the source of this evidence, claims, then either the person who said that is lying or, the _all_ the dissenting scientists are...
And if you are leaning towards the entire academic field is lying, rather than one guy, then the question becomes:
Why would anyone use the research, data and findings from a field that they "know" is made up of "experts" who are either too stupid to draw the correct conclusions from their own work, or too dishonest to...
The knowledge you have of the climate event in question comes from the very scientists and field of study that are also supposed to be too stupid, or too full of sht, to be correct about anything historical climate, does it not?
This should be enough to have you pause and think about it for a moment.
Hancock resuscitates an obsolete C19th hypothesis, originally based on an ignorance of plate tectonics and racist assumptions about innovation, and dresses it up with some esoteric claptrap and conspiracy theory paranoia: prehistory for the hard of thinking.
I think people overlook how much his work plays into that ongoing historical narrative that people around the world were not able to develop technology and culture independently that has been at the root of racist pseudo-history for the better part of 200 years
Nice shed. Great video.
All the best from Portland, OR.
Are you gonna eat that microphone, or what?
Objection #1 considering most civilizations lived along rivers or the coast... Most archeological remains would now be underwater, not to mention the destruction across the land from flooding after an impact/airburst over a glacier. Example, the Clovis culture is found below the 12960bp black mat layer, but not above it. There are entire underwater towns of the coast of Spain, Italy, Greece, Egypt, Turkey, India, Japan's, Indonesia....
I was unaware that all of the cities in Spain, Italy, Freeze, Egypt, Turkey, India, Japan and Indonesian were under water.
What's that? They weren't? Those civilizations moved beyond the rivers waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay before they gained the ability to sail across the world. Well, I guess this civilization was just dumb.
@@cemarz "I was unaware that all of the cities in Spain, Italy, Freeze, Egypt, Turkey, India, Japan and Indonesian were under water."
Lying about what he said undermines any counter arguments you make later...
watch Objection 2
The irony for Graham's strongest argument for ancient civilization was actually buried under the ground and not the sea! Never heard of Göbekli Tepe until Graham wrote about it or the Ufra region with the other Tepe's! Most archeologists in the UK still marvel at Stone Henge that looks like it was never finished compared to the stone masonry at Tepe's of Turkey built thousands of years before! On the DNA argument on my father's side, I supposedly hail from Sardinia but for some strange reason, I also have strong Hainan Chinese, Central American/ South American DNA but my dad was white as they come with blonde hair and blue eyes my Caucasian is 13th on the list!
@@jamesjeffreys424 1. Tepe is extremely explainable within the current understandings of archeology, no need to delve into pseudoscientific claims like that it was actually waaaaay older. 2. If the DNA testing you did was actually accurate (pop dna companies have a habit of fudging things) it doesn’t suddenly prove that you have traceable ancestry to this superculture from 40k years ago. It just means one of your recent ancestors, but not so recent that you or any extant family would have known them, was of the groups that you were surprised to find in the results. Contact with the Americas has existed for 600 years now, and with China technically longer. It’s not crazy to think somewhere in there you got an ancestor from one of these groups.
I like Hancock (as in, I consider his theories plausible), but your objection number 3 is pretty good: why no tomatoes in the old world?
That being said, the idea that humankind suffered some catastrophe at the end of the younger dryass is looking better and better. Plus, why would we ignore the insistance of many mythologies in a great deluge?
I don't think Hancock will turn out to be fully right, but his theories, by virtue of proposing different angles, might inspire better models of prehistory.
I'm surprised you wasted any time on this bollox, but given the sheer volume of pseudo-archaeology/science on the Internet giving it oxygen, I'm glad you did!