Anyone watch Ancient Apocalypse: Americas?

Dude be grasping at straws big time. Annoying, but interesting.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

One thing I’ve noticed this guy do is he tends to play up everything like it’s a brand new thing nobody knew about, when in fact it’s been known for a while.

A casual onlooker may be amazed by his “findings” but anyone who has followed any archeological headlines in recent times would not be surprised one bit. The Amazon lidar scans being one of the “discoveries” that “change everything”… this is old news as far as I know.

I guess it's just coming down to who's theory you subscribe to? Graham Hancock has separated himself a lot from the "mainstream" archeologists and gotten a lot of hate over the years. I haven't seen "Ancient Apocalypse: Americas" yet though and I don't know anything about archeology myself so I have no idea who might be right or wrong.

I haven’t written him off as wrong or anything but so far the connections he attempts to make are very weak. Played up by a lot of showmanship. If he discovers something truly new … great!

Just started watching it today! Only 3 episodes in but he’s on to something I reckon. The older stonework being more advanced is compelling and seemingly consistent across different regions.

I’m not sold. Maybe. Other stuff like statues with hands on lap or some nonsense was total gibberish.

Nothing wrong with a bit of healthy scepticism.

There are others besides Graham who do this stuff from different angles. e.g https://m.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLb1MDIWaJM6ll4xS6jBDsCVDjjEJhfQQ2

As opposed to detractors like "flint dibble".

Interesting... I started to watch yesterday!

Let me know what you think! I’ve spotted too many issues in his presentation already.

Seemed a bit more forced than the other one, I agree. Sometimes he tries to push correlations to fit is theory... but I enjoyed watching! and there's probably something there...

🤣 watching it now. He’s very convincing but he’s trying to connect everything to everything else. V interesting though. Cool if true.

Feels more like hopium

Fair enough. Still can’t help hopiuming 🤣🤣🤣

Quite proud of that one.

No I mean him

What I liked was that it’s such a fun concept. I love that it could be true, and yet it naturally has a very small set of evidence that doesn’t seem like hard evidence, just clues at what could be facts.

The whole time, he’s like, “I don’t know, I’m just a journalist, but we should study this and not block it from study.” I can get behind that part.

I do know that we find ourselves wrong a lot, until one solid piece of evidence shows up then we have to rewrite a bunch of shit. 😂

He gets really out there in his mind over matter and drug induced telekinesis humanity stuff. But on the timeline and geological research, I like the questions being asked.