Basically Hancock show lots of interesting and fascinating archaeological sites which is great especially since a lot of these are things that most viewers didn't know about before. But sadly he chooses to use these site only to present his theory for which he's doesn't have any actual evidence.
Thank you for that video. Unfortunately the guy spends the first part of it just hating on Hancock, which I don’t think is a good way to debunk stuff
I was also hoping the guy would find whatever papers or publications were made by the scientists Hancock interviews throughout the series, but he’s mainly just rebutting the concept of an ancient advanced civilization (which yes, is very speculative, and even Hancock says that himself in the series)
Clearly the guy has a lot of detractors, his grand theories are speculative and they certainly have many holes
But it also seems like even mainstream archaeology is also, to some degree, speculative (we can’t really know exactly what happened in the past). And that some of the research that Hancock is supporting his theories on, might actually be right
Anyway, thank you again. I will take Hancock’s most grandiose claims with a grain of salt, but I’m also going to keep an open mind about alternative theories of how the Americas might have been first populated by humans (especially the Amazon)
One the one hand, experts pile up pretty hard on this series and on M. Hancock. Maybe deservedly, I don't know.
But I'm still sour about COVID where experts piled up pretty hard on the lab leak theory. When early on, experts were telling us that science said that masks were ineffective. They were adamant.
Here, the very insistence of those experts, the aggressive tone of the wikipedia page give me an air of deja vu.
You mean by the history we are told in the Ancient Apocalypse series? No, probably not.
But that's the point! New information such as these discoveries in the Amazon show that the stories told by "mainstream archeology" can't explain the reality of the modern world either!
Where does that leave us? I don't know, but curiosity should be encouraged.
? How do you figure? The idea of "fully explaining" the modern world seems a ridiculous concept but it's not like we have alternatives to the concept of looking to the past in a methodical manner.
The slow movingness of Science with its method and peer reviewing definitely fights against new ideas becoming accepted overnight, but we do get there, and glomming onto personalities with unaccepted ideas will hurt your 'correctness' more than help it.
I watched some of the first season and was actually already open to all the alt archaeology stuff with the precision arguments people make, but the more I looked the more clear it was just BS.
I think the biggest thing about the old world people miss (and thus makes alt archeology so attractive) is the mass use of slaves and general lack of caring about human suffering.
All these people that think big archaeology is wrong because of gobekli Teppe and they now have a couple seasons of the Netflix show referenced in this thread
I can assure you my comment has nothing to do with any Netflix show. Or any ancient history.
We only need to go back 300 years to find the history we’re told isn’t reality. Do we think the Voc went silently into the night? Did the banking families of the 1800s reproduce to such a degree their fortunes are no more? We can keep going.
Comments
I don't know if you're aware, but Ancient Apocalypse is pseudo science.
I know it has that reputation. But besides people saying stuff like your comment, I haven’t seen any specifics about exactly what’s wrong
Would you care to elaborate? Have you seen the show? Could you point to the things that are wrong and why?
Genuinely curious and wanting to learn
I think this video is good Ressource on the topic.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-iCIZQX9i1A
Basically Hancock show lots of interesting and fascinating archaeological sites which is great especially since a lot of these are things that most viewers didn't know about before. But sadly he chooses to use these site only to present his theory for which he's doesn't have any actual evidence.
Thank you for that video. Unfortunately the guy spends the first part of it just hating on Hancock, which I don’t think is a good way to debunk stuff
I was also hoping the guy would find whatever papers or publications were made by the scientists Hancock interviews throughout the series, but he’s mainly just rebutting the concept of an ancient advanced civilization (which yes, is very speculative, and even Hancock says that himself in the series)
Clearly the guy has a lot of detractors, his grand theories are speculative and they certainly have many holes
But it also seems like even mainstream archaeology is also, to some degree, speculative (we can’t really know exactly what happened in the past). And that some of the research that Hancock is supporting his theories on, might actually be right
Anyway, thank you again. I will take Hancock’s most grandiose claims with a grain of salt, but I’m also going to keep an open mind about alternative theories of how the Americas might have been first populated by humans (especially the Amazon)
Yeah, I'm hesitant about this.
One the one hand, experts pile up pretty hard on this series and on M. Hancock. Maybe deservedly, I don't know.
But I'm still sour about COVID where experts piled up pretty hard on the lab leak theory. When early on, experts were telling us that science said that masks were ineffective. They were adamant.
Here, the very insistence of those experts, the aggressive tone of the wikipedia page give me an air of deja vu.
The reality of the modern world cannot be explained by the history we are told.
You mean by the history we are told in the Ancient Apocalypse series? No, probably not.
But that's the point! New information such as these discoveries in the Amazon show that the stories told by "mainstream archeology" can't explain the reality of the modern world either!
Where does that leave us? I don't know, but curiosity should be encouraged.
? How do you figure? The idea of "fully explaining" the modern world seems a ridiculous concept but it's not like we have alternatives to the concept of looking to the past in a methodical manner.
The slow movingness of Science with its method and peer reviewing definitely fights against new ideas becoming accepted overnight, but we do get there, and glomming onto personalities with unaccepted ideas will hurt your 'correctness' more than help it.
I watched some of the first season and was actually already open to all the alt archaeology stuff with the precision arguments people make, but the more I looked the more clear it was just BS.
I think the biggest thing about the old world people miss (and thus makes alt archeology so attractive) is the mass use of slaves and general lack of caring about human suffering.
I couldn't believe Red Fort was built in 9 years in 1640, until I had that epiphany, for instance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Fort
You may need some evidence. For example, someone looking back on us might think that, because we accept the current level of suffering as normal.
What is alt-arhaeology?
All these people that think big archaeology is wrong because of gobekli Teppe and they now have a couple seasons of the Netflix show referenced in this thread
I can assure you my comment has nothing to do with any Netflix show. Or any ancient history.
We only need to go back 300 years to find the history we’re told isn’t reality. Do we think the Voc went silently into the night? Did the banking families of the 1800s reproduce to such a degree their fortunes are no more? We can keep going.