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

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

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..?

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.

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!

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

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.

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

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

@ History Time I suddenly have the feeling that I have not lived a full life not have indulged in the culinary pleasure of a Bourbon biscuit

Custard creams are better

@@VoicesofthePast You all deserve panty splatter art snacks.

History Time what would you do with a million Squid?

Everyone knows Bourbons are still wild what are you talking about?

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.

@@SalizarwillNah 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

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 😅

@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.

Well put, hearing him speak is fascinating and makes you want to believe that ancient civilization stretches back much further but alas, we need way more supporting evidence to take his claims more seriously. In short, Graham's speeches are fun and entertaining.

@Ben Ghazi Hancock psychofan here. I think calling him a charlatan is too strong a word, and anyone who does such ad hominem attacks is not helping the debate. Bring arguments like Stefan does. And Stefan's critique in this video does not cover all the work of Hancock, who many times asks good questions, thus contributing to the field of archaeology.

You are too gentlemanly.

I was just waiting for this type of video from someone since i have come to know about his theories from JRE podcast. Thankas for providing the exact what i needed.

Hancock’s ideas make tripping on DMT more fun and that’s not nothing

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

kzfaq.info/get/bejne/esd6iqibztPJdIE.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.

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?

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

I hope you also found Stefan Milo's new episode on the netflix series kzfaq.info/get/bejne/aZphf9lpr7Kwhmg.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.

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.

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...

Hancock has no trianing whatsoever, he just connects dots that are actually a Rorschach print

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)

Graham is renown for changing his mind based on new data. In 20+ hours of video, he’s never once shown any signs of taking any criticism as a personal attack. It is very clear from listening to this guy vs Hancock, Hancock comes across as the smarter, more articulate and clearer thinker.

@@o6uoq agreed 100%

This is how "established academia" works. Ignore the evidence, ignore other sciences and attack the person (this has happened several times with the Clovis timeline established in North America...and despite that has been overturned, and sadly several careers have sadly been ruined thanks to "accepted academia"). Adhering to paradigms established two hundred years ago by archaeologists and applying any new discoveries to those paradigms and rejecting those that don't isn't science at all. At 15:54 he says native Americans did indeed come from Asia to the Americas, completely ignoring the fact that DNA studies have overturned that meme. What this guy preaches is not science...it's dogma, and because dogma has been established into academic science it's nearly become a religion. Our species has been in existence for 300,000 years. Doesn't it seem unnatural that this intelligent, inventive, creative being existed for 288,000 years before hunter/gatherers managed to develop civilizations (taking Gobekli Tepe as a beginning point for civilization)? Adding to that, it's wrong to assume that an extinct civilization progressed the same way we did because we're not digging up rusty can openers and plastic packaging. To suggest this means there were no advanced civilizations before us is outrageously ignorant, IMO.

@@o6uoq Does this head to head analyse of yours influence the way you critique the content of the debate? Like, do you agree with Hancock, not beause his argument and his logic or more concrete, but beause you like him more as an human being/scientist? You should leave out all things human when confronting this debates in a sceptical way. Just look at them as person A and person B, and then look at their arguments and their reasoning. The rest will only serve as White noise.

@@pukel95 thanks for the life tip but my observation is based on studying Egyptology since high school and Hancock being the only one I know of who is constantly working to contradict himself and is open-minded to change and the art of the possible.

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.

??? Rogan doesn't pay his guests.

@@tonedumbharry Book sales

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.

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

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.

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

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...

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.

#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.

⁠@@dakotamorlan2797 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.

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......🤣🤣🤪

@@jps101574 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.

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 KZfaq 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”.

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

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.

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 KZfaq.

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.

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.

The latter also reflects the negative impact of our largely entertainment-based culture. The "alternative" schtick is more Hollywood than history - purposely so. Those specious narratives were intentionally created to dovetail into ones found in the entertainment genre so as to take advantage of all that "free publicity" in order to monetize them. It also shows the pitfalls of supposed "self-research" online in what are subjects representing esoterica. Dunning-Kruger is the new normal among _devotees_ of such twaddle.

Depends. Attacking ideas is fine but attacking the individual proposing those ideas is not.

Unnecessary They are all incessantly preemptive Visit any conference or symposium to verify Graham masterfully mimics their rhetorical bickering so as to blend in to their preferred style of pugilisticly pugnacious powwows

@@letyvasquez2025 Huh?!?!? Did not understand what you just said. Your not mimicking academics here by any chance, are you?

By being incoherent, yes. But only if asked. ~Scientists do consider any critique a personal attack. To verify this, you should visit a scientific conference and watch them berate one another. If you require elementary graphics to further understand the above, please return to school.

@@letyvasquez2025 Even if academics regularly personally attack the purveyors of ideas and not the idea itself it goes not make it right to do so. And I do not need to return to school to appreciate that.

you mean, English?

@@mrplease66 In america they would probably say "Tom-ay-toe" instead of "Tom-ah-toe"

@@mrplease66 No, British. Pippin said tom-ah-toes and he was Scottish.

Based

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.

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?

Twin Peaks Robot Objection Voice vs. Nazi Archaeologist. I’d give a kidney to see that happen.

@@peteMickeal33 Wait I want to make sure I understand you here. When Hancock makes the claim that there was a global civilization in the ice age that could be compared to the British Empire pre-industrialization, you think the burden of proof is on Stefan?

@@peteMickeal33 So if I said that humans flew to the Moon 100,000 years ago, I wouldn't carry the burden of proof because anthropologists are already wrong about their own claims? So they have to prove that humans didn't fly to the Moon?

@@peteMickeal33 I see that you didn't understand the point of the question I posed. The very same point you are trying to make can be made with a claim such as the one I made. When it comes to the claim that there was a global civilization on a scale comparing to the late British Empire pre-industrialization, Hancock has to prove that. What he's pointing at does not prove that. It doesn't matter if anthropologists are wrong about some things or even if they are wrong about lots of things. Hancock still has the burden of proof when it comes to such a claim. Just like I would have the burden of proof if I said that humans went to the Moon 100,000 years ago. It doesn't matter if anthropologists are wrong about lots of things. Assuming that they are wrong about lots of things, it's still not justified for me to come with such a claim without proving it myself.

@@peteMickeal33 I'm glad we agree on that point. But the thing is that you seemingly appear to be an example of what I wrote in my original comment, because this video is only about that claim that Hancock made. Just that claim. As I also mentioned in my original comment, I had another short conversation with one of Hancock's fans who immediately said that Stefan was wrong, but when he was pressured on it, he actually agreed with Stefan's point. Now you also appear to agree with him, even though you clearly started out by disagreeing. So when you agree with the point that I made, you agree with the whole point Stefan is making in this video, and so it really does appear like you didn't watch the video, but just chose to disagree immediately because Stefan attacked Hancock's claim. That's what it seems like.

Good point. Apparently he thinks that they constructed most of our largest ancient stone structures, but they only inhabited the coastal areas that are now underwater. Apparently he doesn't see the problem with that.

Excellent point

Ooooh Australia is interesting, because in recent years landscape archaeology and records of early contact between colonists and aborigines have suggested a kind of agriculture was actually present. Just not intensive crop agriculture. It relied more on breeding edible and usable plants out of very hardy ones and planting them in areas commonly visited but also suitable for this sporadic cultivation. They even harvested masses of nuts and dry plant matter that they buried in stashes for long term use, we even have records of aborigines teaching explorers about these to help them survive.

@@Rynewulf The discoveries are interesting from the point of view of studying how agriculture developed. It appears to be deliberate encouragement of useful species and better yielding variations within species.

Matthew Doye Similar evidence is coming up in the Amazon, so it might end up turning out agriculture was spread at least a bit on all continents

Also, you'd find genetic evidence in domesticated crops

Loads would survive dude, just look up what we do find from 10000 years ago. That’s what mainstream theories are based upon. Hancock can’t be any food epic he can never find any evidence.

@@russelledwards001 When I've looked up what survives from 10,000 years ago, most of it is stone. I'm wondering if something like iron would hold up for that long.

A lot. Metal doesn't decompose and plastics take an eternity to. A simple plastic bottle takes over 400 years to decompose. In 12,000 years I imagine the world from WALL-E.

plastic would, as nano-plastics. You'd need some kind of machine that could hoover them up and melt them all together again lol. I sure wish they had that machine because I would like to not be ingesting microplastics! Looking forward to reading your story. Sci-Fi is often based on truths that come true after the "what if's" and the debunkers.

I've excavated rusted iron at medieval sites literally hundreds of times. Even when completely oxidized to dust, you can still see it in the soil and know it was a nail by its shape (medieval folks in northern Europe made a shocking amount of nails). We don't actually need a metal tool or other artifact to survive in order to see it and date it based on other objects in the layer.

There’s a book written by Steve Webb of Griffith University in Brisbane, Australia called “Made in Africa”. Going over human evolution in the travels for the last 7 million years.

@@M.N.Baxter thanks Meg, I’m in Australia and should be able to get my hands on it

I’d say he would fundamentally object to that

I enjoyed hearing him say “fancy a shag”

it's rubbish

Yes. For a supposed "advanced" culture = ironic in how absolutely nothing remains....... What they try to ascribe to said "lost" culture of course can be more plausibly linked to know civilizations. That renders Hancock's claims not only nonsensical on their face being illustrative of argumentum ad ignorantiam - but also indicative of an overactive imagination to boot. 🤨

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 KZfaq 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

That made me chortle

in what way?

And before anyone says there is no evidence of custard creams before the ice age, don't you know absence of evidence is evidence the great flood?!!!!!!

@@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

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.

@@Prada_GT Can you give specific examples? So far, researchers managed to drill and carve granite using bronze age tools and even made stone vessels.

@@Prada_GT Denys Stocks has published his results (Experiments in Egyptian Archaeolgy, page 115). He obtained a cutting ratio in granite of 12 cubic cm/h (using a bronze or copper saw and sand), which is reasonable. Using this ratio, any 2 sides of the sarcophagus of Khufu can be cut in less then 4 month. I'm not denying lathes being used. The guys from "scientists against myths" channel made a stone vessel and used a slow turning lathe for the exterior The marks from the granite cores are not the result of high speed drilling because 1) the lines intersect each other, there is no continuous spiral and 2) the core tapers, which means that the marks have been made by the side of the drill, not by the cutting edge. Similar marks have been obtained experimentally, using bronze age technology. The Serapeum sarcophagi are not as precise as people claim. The internal angles range between 90+ and 92+ degrees, as recorded by the ISIDA Project Team. isida-project.org/egypt_march_2013/serapeum.htm The stone of the pregnant woman was never separated from the bedrock. Carving up a big block of stone is nothing special, the difficult part comes with it's movement. Which saw mark are you referring to? I am not aware of any saw mark that cannot be explained by manual sawing, including the ones from the sarcophagus of Hordjedef from the Cairo Museum. Precision never left, if you look at the later works of the Greeks, Romans and the Baroque period. The sculpture becomes much more complex after the Egypians (the roman sarcophagi of Constantina and Hellena - similar to the Serapeum ones, Laocon and his Sons, the works of Bernini etc). Similar building methods can be discovered independently by different civilizations at different times, just how they discovered agriculture or writing, all on their own.

Still

Check out unchartedx if you haven't already.

@@simplyhuman3982 Uncharted x is a fraud. His videos are terrible, but he makes quite the money from Patreon and his overly priced tours. I debunked a few of his videos, in the comments of his videos, but he was kind enough to insult and block me. I would love to debate him, but he is afraid.

Ah the good old days. It was a well kept secret back then.

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.

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

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

This is the current thinking about the Clovis culture.

@@dat2ra Have you done a video on this Clovis culture. Would be interested in viewing.

@@raymondcasey5747 read a book

"what was the ‘ice bridge’ between what is now Russia and Canada" aka Beringsland, named for the Bering Strait in modern geography. Edit: it's Alaska, not Canada it connects with.

they are the original inhabitants before Eurasians game to America no one lived there. There is the Sumatran hypothesis but it is a bit left field

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.

Because "face-to-face" arguments always tend to favour the loud showman over the methodical scientist. It's why Young Earth creationists like Duane Gish love live debates, it allows them to overwhelm their opponents by firing off an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments.

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 ******

Obviously, Neanderthal left Africa due to the fact they were constantly delinquent on the rent. Their welcome wore out in short order.

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

@@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.

Source: trust me bro