Recensioni degli utenti

Okay, so I watched this cause I'm an archaeology buff and I have to say I'm divided. On the one hand, this guy has a perfectly believable point which is that History as we know it is basically incomplete because we are missing large parts of time in our records due to war and cataclysm. That's a theory I can absolutely get behind. He essentially states that we have forgotten more ancient, advanced civilisations than we currently know. So in this theory Sumeria is not the oldest by far and human "civilised" history is actually several millenia older. Again I might be inclined to get behind that. He chalks up this amnesia to the ice age and willing ignorance from the academia. Having been in the academia myself I cam confirm that it can be stifling place full of people who are extremely reluctant to admit they might not hold the absolute, final truth so again far enough. But then it takes a turn into crazy Mulder conspiracy land. Not only is academia narrow-minded and humankind amnesiac, no. The truth is that all ancient civilisations are descended from a single super ancient, super advanced forgotten civilisation. And the evidence for this is that a bunch of them have kind of similar legends about their origins. So basically I sorta of agree with his premise but his conclusion is banana pants. He completely throws out the scientific method and he absolutely does cherry pick his legends and his facts. Being from one of the countries he visits and talks about I can confirm that the legends of my country he chose isn't even the most common one. This guy uses a very effective method to try and convince people which is he mixes up facts with the unknown and people's inherent desire for the mysterious to have meaning and then leads you down a very odd rabbit hole. I'm giving it 6 stars cause some of the things he says and presents are interesting enough that I'll read about them later on but also because he kinda goes down a cray cray path there. Oh and one star down because he talked to Joe Rogan.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is wrong.

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

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

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

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

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

Graham Hancock dares to ask questions.

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

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

Oh, OK then...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I love this documentary. It's a great step forward in utilizing journalism to challenge mainstream notions of science and history. Great storyline. Amazing if anything. It takes you through the journey Hancock theorizes quite smoothly helping the viewer understand the mysticism.

History and anthropology buffs will enjoy this in particular because of how much connections they can make between their own knowledge and what Hancock is trying to show us.

There are some missed connections in the telling and analysis of events mostly due to not enough attention on local and lost folklore of the locations in question (specifically the ones in the ME less in SA sites). The sites in Turkey for example have many stories connected to them from local people or regional populations who also carry the same history. But nonetheless it's a 10/10 because Hancock makes sure he doesn't miss anything else.

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

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

The whole show can be wrapped to this: "mainstream archeology doesn't believe me when I say there was an ancient civilization. I won't show any proof but mainstream archeology doesn't believe me. Mainstream archeology is all against me. Mainstream mainstream mainstream. No proof but mainstream and I'm right."

I thought he would actually show some proof or even theories, but he just goes around the world and "asks questions" with no explanations. And of course goes into "maybe some ancient civilization taught all these people to do things."

There may have been an ancient civilization, but a single person just blaming "mainstream archeology" for not believing them isn't going to get anyone to believe him either.

As someone who probably like most stumbled upon Graham Hancock and his work from the JRE experience am so happy he has got this show. I just started it, and it's already just astonishing. I have followed and listened to him and Randall Carlson on the rogan experience every single time they went on, which is usually 3+ hours of just unbelievable information they give us. I cannot wait to continue to watch this series as I will burn through it tonight.

I'm so grateful that rogans podcast is so powerful that Graham and I'm sure eventually Carlson will get their say in matters that are closed off by the archeological and scientific world and THAT THIS is the only way of thinking. Also gives me the opportunity to talk to people that actually might watch this show instead of me regurgitating from the podcast and sounding like a lunatic.

Kudos.

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

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

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

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

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

You can remember people like Galileo, who would stand against established truths and the people of power would be against him... Honestly I do not have any problems with this theory as suddenly a whole lot of stuff starts to make sense... Why would ancients waste so much time and effort to build 36 underground cities in Turkey, why would they build massive temples to observe the stars so precisely, why would the symbols of serpents would be so common in multiple cultures and finally all the prophets stories that are present in almost every ancient culture, when a man sent by the gods would come and teach a young civilization some knowledge that would either speed up the culture or improve their lives... What Graham Hancock did is analysed a lot of information and unified it into a single theory, well nobody says it was exactly like that, no one will tell, that is why it is called a theory and I have completely nothing about it's existence...

I binge-watched the entire series in one sitting, and it held my attention for the entire 8 hours. Graham Hancock brings us on a tour of ancient archeological sites from civilizations around the world, tying them together with a shared history of a global cataclysm that cut humanity off from its ancient prehistoric past. A past which likely contained an advanced civilization that predates all known advanced civilizations by thousands of years. The visual exploration of archeological sites is both enlightening and engaging. Adding in Graham Hancock's suggested rewrite of ancient history - which, after watching this series seems not just plausible but highly probable - makes this a series that is definitely worth the watch. I highly recommend it.

After reading some of Hancock's books and listening to his interviews on the Joe Rogan podcast, I was really glad to hear about this show coming on Netflix.

Go listen to the interviews of him and Randall Carlson on JRE if you haven't yet. They're fascinating!

The theories presented in the series are very compelling and I'd love to hear what mainstream archaeologists have to say to refute them. I bet they would be hard-pressed to do so.

If only more archaeologists were as open-minded as Graham Hancock, we'd probably know a lot more about our past by now.

I'd really love to see a second season about psychedelics that Graham hinted about on JRE.

This is the first time I ever write a review on IMDB. But I need to say something.

For those people that are saying he has no scientific facts or bases his findings on myths. Well, for one, there is little to no evidence (yet) that proves a forgotten civilisation before recorded history by the academia. The sites or findings that proves the academia wrong have been shut down. (You can search about these). The myths he chose to show might not be a common one in the country you live in, but not every myths got told to every single person in the generations. There are myths of our kings and queens, warriors and heroes that have been proven to be true in my country. These myths are all pointing us to Younger Dryas. And scientists are researching the evidence now, just like the evidence that give us conclusion to the ice age existance.

Since there are no evidence on how these buildings and pyramids are made, how human learned farming, don't you get curious of what the myths are telling us?? Don't you get confused of why shrines, temples, pyramids around the world are built with the same shape, worship the same god? Aren't you curious why shapes like the ones on Easter Island appears around the world when supposedly humans are hunter gatherers and had no intelligent? Yes these are myths, but they were also carved into walls and statues, and they tell us the same story. Aren't you curious why there are so many pharaohs that are counted as myths by the academia, but their face and names are carved into the very same wall with all those other "real" pharaoh?

He's not saying giants and serpents are real. He is saying the events in those stories are the same. Shouldn't we look into it? He hasn't made a conclusion yet, he's just saying these could be the case.

He is not forcing you to believe it, he is simply asking the question "aren't you curious?".

Also, about the astronomists. Ancient China has been using sun moon and stars to predict the future, weather, to develop war tactics for thousands of years. It's not a myth that ancient people worship the sky.

What he has lead us to is not a rabbit hole, but a small small part of the evidences that have emerged. I really hope he keeps researching and doing this series. Since there are not a lot of evidence yet, these ancient buildings and stories might be pointing us to the right direction.

An old conspiracy theories believes he knows more than actual archaeologists and is so I'll researched that he can't even get basic dates for the sites he uses correctly. Netflix really just sunk their money into this oil spill of a ship for people to pretend they know what they're talking about.

How about making an actual documentary series with established real archaeologists who have actual credentials and experience instead of letting this wrinkled legume get off on his own ego and drag every pseudoscience loving freak with him. If you have an interest in history just do some research but don't take the steps back that watching this mess would take you.

I was looking forward to this but I can honestly say that I'm a bit disappointed by the execution. Is this designed for the "I'm a celebrity" crowd? I would have preferred fewer sound effects and massive dins- it's like being at a radio 1xtra dance!

The content is interesting and compelling enough without it being edited to within an inch of its life.

I will watch the rest but it would have been much better to have it presented it in a less bombastic fashion, more straight forward

I believe I am being quite fair here. No doubt others will complete destroy it.

I believe I am being quite fair here. No doubt others will complete destroy it.

To quote the journal Economic Times: "Scientists have categorized almost all of Hancock's "scientific thesis" as pseudoscientific, and archaeologists have termed his works "examples of pseudohistory and pseudoarchaeology." Media sources suggest that none of Hancock's research articles was peer-reviewed." The cinematography is beautiful but it's a shame that academically rigorous archaeologists were not featured. If they had been the public could learn something that is supported by evidence rather than be misled into believing a fantasy dreamed up by the narrator and promoted by Mr Rogan who loves a good story more than the messy and difficult truth.

I have read much of Hancock's work before, and I do consider myself somewhat of an admirer of his, but this, I must say, this was something I was not prepared for. Thank you sincerely. Thank you to the whole team and to everyone who is behind this gem of a production. It has been one of the most enjoyable viewing experiences in a long while for me. Having gotten fed up with many of Netflix's low-effort and rubbish documentaries lately, this one truly stuck out.

Not only is it straight to the point and doesn't at any point feel dragged out, but it also manages to do something most other series nowadays do not. It entices you, not by the use of cliffhangers or the like, but by simple, captivating storytelling. I find it astonishing how big of an impact a competent, fluent, and well-educated speaker can have on a show. It was a good decision by Netflix to have Graham do the voice-over and not hire someone else. His voice is the perfect mix of a fascination for the subject and an eagerness to teach, and it's so pleasant listening to.

The CGI work, the cinematography, the composition, and the timelines, everything matches together so beautifully. I especially liked the illustrations and drone shots taken from these amazing sites. It really gives you a better understanding of the perspective and true-scale of these stunning, extraordinary structures.

Sure it's been edited to create suspense, and the music is a bit dramatic at times, but in my opinion, this merely adds to the viewing experience as a whole. I mean, how cool is it not that ancient advanced civilizations might have existed a lot sooner than we had previously thought? Just the idea of it alone I find rather intriguing. It doesn't, however, take away from the fact that much of this is purely speculation, but, the possibility of it actually being true I think demands for these sites and locations be investigated further.

If you are a sucker for history, like me, and consider yourself a tinkerer, then this is the perfect show for you. I promise you, you'll be suprisingly pleased. And thank you, Graham, for letting me on this journey with you. I could only dream of one day getting to meet you, and perhaps venture these incredible locations for myself.

Much love, a youngling from Sweden.

Love documentaries like this with no definite closure and always ended with mysteries and our own intepretation. The host (Graham Hancock) did his part well and seems someone with tons of knowledge in lost histories, ancient civilization, cultures, geology, mathematics, science and etc. Great representation of various countries/borders/cultures/background/histories and very entertaining to watch yet very educational. The sound effects and visual effects were totally acceptable and easier to understand. The guests were all able to done their part well by giving a brief explanation of their own lifelong researches to the viewers with facts and hypothesis. Recommended.

In the first episode, old mate drills into a mountain, carbon dates some rock and decides there was a 20,000 year old civilisation there because the rock is 20,000 years old.

By the same technique, the driveway I had laid last week would have 100,000 year old sand stone in it, so it must have been laid by a civilisation 100,000 years ago.

The guys a quack and getting paid a lot to sell rubbish to misinformed everyday people.

Granted the visuals are beautiful, however the filming style and audio makes it seem like he's found something revolutionary. It's not revolutionary, it's science fiction.

1 star because I can't give 0.