Ancient Apocalypse

The term 'pseudo-science' has been used to create an interesting aura with the guy who correlated information for this series. There is a sense to discredit the perspective attained not only by him but also numerous other recognised and educated individuals who attained qualifications / recognition for their data and factual interpretation.

There comes a point where 'scientists' can eliminate so much information they end up discrediting what they have access to. The guy in this programme presents himself as a journalist...he has spent his life simply gathering information from both indigenous people and physical locations that display physical data / information and other people with recognition in their field. Instead of actively eliminating data he correlates and forms informative patterns. It is important to accept we don't need to be limited to the perspective of some individuals who claim to be better than others but instead just be able to acknowledge the wealth of information available.

Truth is as ability to correlate data improves, we gain a more clear picture of what was always able to be viewed - think back to when those who claimed the Earth was flat and there was an edge to fall off, then to when we first gained an image of Earth from space. The archeological people who are failing to simply acknowledge views of others are themselves removing a sense of scientific analysis. LiDAR, computer correlation of constellation placement through thousands of years, physical objects and carvings as well as stories through the history of mankind surely can be acknowledged as a whole rather than eliminated. I am left wondering why this guy has been labelled 'pseudoscience' when he actively has people from numerous perspectives share their sense of what they know from visible and known data sources.

We gain better awareness through experiencing numerous perspectives. Why would you actively want to limit an opportunity to allow people to experience what others have dedicated their life to correlating? No-one needs to cover up - let people form their own view of this programme which is well worth watching. For many years information has been controlled, held by those deemed worthy when we are all worthy of forming a view ourselves.

Recommend you watch with open eyes and ears. You don't need to accept everything that is shared. What is hidden will always be revealed...

Look, honestly it seems that the major pushback to this is just a bunch of whining, while the show honestly stays very grounded. It shows factual developments, great renders, really great writing.

The animations are a great and inspiring feat. He is not suggesting anything ridiculous, and it is a truly fun ride. Just check it out, then go on to explore on your own. Books like Sapiens or Dawn of Everything are great examples of the general shift in human history perception.

Let us not get blocked by many old archeologists who cannot let go of their way of seeing the world.

This is proposing points we must explore further, and then decide, whether they are valid or not. That is all the presenter asks for, after all.

Journalist Graham Hancock brings us the compelling idea that advanced civilizations existed on Earth as far back as the last Ice Age and that our technological knowledge was wiped out through apocalyptic events. He acts as a guide, bringing us to ancient ruins and discussing the advanced knowledge it would take to build these structures, along with his theories on why academia is getting our history wrong.

Unfortunately, this series employs a continuous soundtrack of music and booming sounds, which makes the dialogue difficult to hear and understand. I would much prefer to hear the information Graham has researched so thoroughly rather than cheesy sound effects.

For any curious mind that wants to know more about our past, this documentary reveals wonderful monuments, much older than well known monuments such as the pyramid of Giza. And not only presents these monuments, but analyzes them in ways that reveal the complexity of those minds that have realized them. It makes the viewer realize how many more hidden treasures are on this Earth, and how little we've explored them.. and how much more we could do to understand them. It truly excites and opens your mind to new possibilities.

As for the arguments behind his ideas about the ancient civilization, they are all empirical. He collects data from various sites, and in various ways, puts the information together and builds a story out of them. There is nothing extravagant in his methods, quite the contrary, they are quite sensible and rational. For those that criticize him merely because he did not earn a degree in this domain, remember centuries ago, people like Leonardo da Vinci were revolutionizing the world and there was no one to call them a fraud because they had no University diploma. In fact, I am most glad that there are individuals like Graham, who dare to use their whole creativity and imagination to explore and learn about the world, without the invisible chains imposed by our society.

Plenty of examples here where things are made to seem true just by association by statements that appear to support the arguments made, but really are just used for only that purpose in many cases.

Graham obviously is not doing this to save humanity from ignorance, and I do agree that old ways of thinking should be challenged, but this is just another example of how not to do it.

Graham is clear in his statement that he is a journalist, not archeologist or scientist. If he truly had the motivation to expose the "lies" from established archeologists, why not get the credentials and beat them at their own game?

Worth a watch for that purpose, educational material for critical thinking.