The Mars Mystery: Graham Hancock's Grifting Exposed

[@Dan-ib4yc]

Don't knock Coast to Coast AM, there's nothing quite like Art Bell taking calls and humouring some random weirdo who says he's a time traveller or werewolf or whatever

[@donaldr.dieffenbach7713]

There is a fine line between what Art did as a broadcaster/entertainer and what Graham Hancock does as a "journalist" but there is a line.

[@RelivingHistory1]

I used to watch Hancock on JRE. At the beginning, I liked him. But over time, I sensed something was wrong with him. I started questioning some of his "facts" and quickly realised most of it was a lie, just covered with a bit of truth to make it seem real. I can see now that he's a good story teller and knows how to act to make you like him, but in the end he's a bullshitter.

[@noisepuppet]

Pretty good rule of thumb: if they constantly refer to the standard body of methods and findings in an academic discipline as "mainstream [that discipline]," they are hucksters or huckster stans. There may be exceptions, but after 40 years in and around higher ed, I've yet to encounter one. For example, working archaeologists don't refer to "mainstream archaeology" as if that's one kind among some other kinds. You're doing archaeology, or not. If you do it badly, or your findings aren't widely accepted or current, you're still doing archaeology, not some off-brand of non-mainstream archaeology. If it's made to sound like archaeology without using archaeology methods or taking account of accepted archaeology findings, it's pseudo-archaeology. Hancock will be the first to say his work isn't archaeology and he has no training in that field. But he still poses "mainstream archaeology" vs his work, implying that it's some kind of "alternative archaeology" which in fact does not exist. No working archaeologist (or other scholar) ever talks about their field in these terms, afaik.

[@KUarentaKILLA]

Rogan lost points with me because he constantly defends his BS because they blew each other. On a unrelated point Joe was never ever funny

[@RelivingHistory1]

@@KUarentaKILLA yeah on his latest podcast with hancock and an archeologist i wish Joe called him out more

[@balefirepodcast]

If you think its his" acting " that made you like him. You've never met him. The Mars mystery was co written by Robert buval ant its a fine book with many intriguing points. Try reading his books or looking at other proponents of his theories like BAM. Builders of the ancient mysteries... most of his skeptics don't..

[@Thecountofstgermaine]

​@@noisepuppetYou are completely mind controlled by the mainstream you so vehemently defend as the bastion of knowledge

[@shaolin1derpalm]

The fact that you actually cite the pages for your breakdown earned a subscription

[@shaolin1derpalm]

@@Kitties-of-Doom correct. He is actually reading the reference material. It's not incredible, just by comparison with the stupid people that don't quote references at all and just echo exactly what other vloggers ay... Whilst having the audacity to call someone else sheep. It's like the obese dude that calls a chubby chick fat

[@samvimes5124]

The Mars Mystery: Released the same year as Stargate SG-1, and 3 years after Stargate the movie. Just sayin'.

[@Thecountofstgermaine]

He has links to military intelligence

[@trevorriley7609]

Sounds like your argument is he is either an accomplished sociopath, or he genuinely questions the status quo, when confronted with new information. What’s your position with Randall Carlson then? I’m curious.

[@clarkkotte3069]

The amount of comments saying "he admitted to not reading the book," and the "not using any evidence to refute graham," people in the comments are insane. The book Thersites admitted to not reading, is not the book he is reviewing and said in the video that he read cover to cover. Also, there are constant page numbers with the citations thersites is bringing up! It's like no one listened to the video and just responded to their own voices in their heads.

[@rockysexton8720]

That's par for the course with any video debunking Hancock. People post critical comments in a manner that suggests they are simply responding to the title rather than watching the video. Or they watch just enough to establish that it is not a flattering review before attacking the reviewer. You get people saying that the video doesn't debunk a particular claim only to have the creator point out, for example, that it was addressed in detail 15 minutes into the video. Its like searching for the Holy Grail to find someone actually responding to a particular criticism of Hancock raised in the video. He has got to be laughing his ass off all the way to the bank at these loons.

[@noisepuppet]

That's the level of discourse you can expect from a bunch of stoner pseud Rogabros. 🗿

[@rayquaza1245]

How would they know? Not as if they read the book either. Or any book.

[@glovere2]

I appreciate this type of analysis because there are so many writers and media personalities like him on all kinds of shows. Wild speculation and extraordinary claims without evidence. Fine as entertainment but not with a veneer of science.

[@timothybruce9366]

That '76 probe result is covered succinctly in Sagan's book "Cosmos". The results "indicated" life, did not "prove" life. This is because those same chemical reactions are possible through inorganic soil chemistry.

[@drunkenkot]

Thanks for referencing Stephan Milo. His channel is great. One thing that I find annoying about the KZbin algorithm is that I occasionally get pseudoscience Graham Hancock type bullshit in my recommended videos because I'm interested in archaeology and the stone age. That's why it's important to clean the feed using the 'not interested' button.

[@tmnumber1]

Where do I find the not interested button on the KZbin mobile app? I would love to get rid of a lot of the BS that I get recommended to me.

[@terryjackmehoff2351]

Close minded

[@terryjackmehoff2351]

See this is how this guy works just stack a bunch of rocks when it's a hundred freaking tons per Stone oh that just that's easy you make your money tearing down ancient history researchers without Graham Hancock you wouldn't be s***

[@drunkenkot]

@@terryjackmehoff2351 I make my money teaching English, not tearing down charlatans. I wish I could make a living exposing these frauds.

[@_Devonce_]

Lmao he’s not a pseudo scientist. Pull up an article or video where he states this cuz he’s NEVER claimed the title “scientist” or “archaeologist” My god y’all here one bad thing about someone without first hand knowledge or experience and quick to jump on that band wagon. Y’all need to do your research before forming opinions

[@davidcauley9400]

I can't believe I used to be pro-Hancock. The sheer weight of counter evidence has forced me to shift my opinion. I suspect I'm in a minority sadly, I mostly see cognitive dissonance from fans when presented by excellent content, like this video

[@branominal]

Can I ask why you used to be pro-hancock and what changed your mind?

[@davidcauley9400]

@@branominal i hadn't been exposed to the counter evidence. I always recognised that Hancock was not doing strict archeology but nor do I dismiss the value of noticing patterns and suggested possibilities, nor people willing to go against dogmas, as that process has often led to ACTUAL scientific investigation. But thanks to various youtubers, the sheer weight of counter evidence to his claims is simply too much to sustain an open mind about his claims. I also began to see how he is a hypocrit who literally does all the manipulative things with his ideas that he accuses mainstream science of. I dont COMPLETELY dismiss all his ideas, some still exist in the "possible" realm, but put simply: Unless he takes his 2 million fortune, and crowdfunds from his millions of true believers, to actually DO the science required to investigate his claims, he clearly is more invested in WHAT IF??? BUY MY BOOK WHILST I DESCRIBE THIS " WHAT IF" ? Rather than intellectual honesty and epistemological rigour. I pretty much consider him a conman until he actually uses his massive reach to make the archeological investigations happen. He won't.

[@branominal]

@@davidcauley9400 thanks. To be honest, Hancock does get a lot of people interested in prehistory who otherwise wouldn't be, but like you say he's earning a lot of money and not actually putting it towards any legitimate research. He even claims in his shows and books that he has indeed found evidence, but he never actually shows us. I do agree though that pushing against the status quo is important, many things are presented as fact in academia when they are far from certain, and even though scientists these days are far more willing to say that their working theories are just the best guesses than they were in the past, there is always bias and an unwillingness to let go of long-held beliefs that must be considered.

[@RH-fj5dl]

​@davidcauley9400 Whshshahhahaha offcourse he earns money. Its his job. You guys dont like his persona,and then hate. Video also, all opinions no facts. I dont care about his persona. Every western man wants to cash, thats just how western people are haha. This video hates because he earns money. What a dumb video.

[@preemptive74]

Richard C Hoagland believed everyone at NASA should have been charged with murder because they had advanced alien technology but sent astronauts into space in the space shuttle. Which he called a "bathtub with wings"

[@M1ggins]

all based on the 'face on Mars' which has been shown to be an optical illusion caused by the low resolution camera .

[@maxzorin9425]

Wait, he's "...telling lies to make money?", I'm a retired barrister and I've never heard of him.

[@MinAwY377]

Underrated comment.

[@kode_kween]

Do your own research & judgement. Graham debated Zahi Hawass, the top Egyptologist & Zahi ended up getting emotional at the open floor questions & leaving. Understand even this guy has a reason for saying what he is just like everyone. Think for yourself.

[@ZimmZutinZayai]

​@@kode_kween Stop pretending you have the discipline or capacity to conduct actual non-biased research.

[@kode_kween]

@@ZimmZutinZayai sure thing squirrel

[@str.77]

@@kode_kween Zahi Hawass is not "the top Egyptologist", except in his own mind. He is a well connected Egyptian bureacrat that's ideal for Hancock to have as a foil.

[@johnpelosi4117]

All content that Graham Hancock explores in his work was already covered by The Firesign Theater in their seminal album "Everything You Know Is Wrong" .

[@josephmclaughlin-zv2qo]

Good reference. So many laughs. How are things in "sector R"?

[@JMM33RanMA]

That may go over the heads of people under 60. Thanks for the memory, really!!! That theme music occasionally pops into my head and I couldn't remember the source until now!

[@cultureshock5000]

says people afraid to ask questions .... almost all of what he and jaw said about giza and teh sphynx is perfectly plausible and supported by the majority of teh evidence, teh only evidence supporting teh mainstream theories is the word of corrupt political actors in the antiquities dept of egypt and the british museum system./...who is just trying to justify looting artifacts;..... so get a clue....actually read his books because he doesnt say anything as fact..... he is alwo a very compelling fiction writer....

[@johnpelosi4117]

@@cultureshock5000 How utterly meaningless.

[@DocBree13]

😂 nice :)

[@batquad8889]

I think you need to review what is right wing versus left wing, especially with respect to conspiracy theories. You say right wing and then use a left wing conspiracy. Despite this confusion about who wants big government control, you did a decent job.

[@kennyshortcake999]

Spot on 🎉 leave his political ideas out of it 🙃 ..

[@sippndipp]

The great pyramids of Gizaeh: "stack a bunch of rocks together and carve them to make em look cool". Thank you, that's enough for me 3:36 and I'm out.

[@FrostekFerenczy]

The Egyptians had been making pyramids for some time before those ones. Pyramids are basically large piles of dirt - they're a very stable sahpe. Whilst impressive in some ways they're also very primitive as regards architecture.

[@billypresnell8204]

I'm with you guys, this guy is full of shit. Anyone who describes that as stacking big rocks together making them look cool is a supreme moran in my book, I'm out with ya and I'm sure many will follow without the door latching

[@billypresnell8204]

Why hate so much just because someone is poking the beat, stop whining 😭, to e down your jealousy and listen to the man

[@DR_DaGOAT]

Lmao, Hancock love him or not has never claimed any of this to be fact, it is pure speculation based on mythology and historical accounts. Always was. People enjoy it, it's not a grift people are reading and listening because it's FUN. Stacking dirt to be cool??? Really? Who's the real grifter here I wonder.

[@Nate-yb3ce]

Not a big fan of Hancock but I don’t think he leans into the “drugs” and spirituality to obtain a wider audience. To be fair I think it’s the most genuine thing about him.

[@imacmill]

_appeal to people that think ancient humans could not have possibly _ Only the nutters think that. The real thinkers question whether or not it was done by the people The Establishment say it was. Try not to be butt-hurt by that.

[@RR_theproahole]

And what does "establishment" says?

[@imacmill]

@@RR_theproahole Egyptians. Duh.

[@ozar_midrashim]

@@RR_theproahole That the "ancient Egyptians", (who, by the way, have no connection to modern Egyptians) built the Pyramids of Giza and the Sphinx. Hancocks claim is that some other, much older and more advanced human civilization built them. The ancient Egyptians just found them after the flood.

[@mchael7549]

Buying this book now. Thanks for the heads up.

[@jasondaveries9716]

His ideas seem very reminiscent of ideas about a lost super civilization that became popular in the early 20th century and grew out of the spiritualist movement. Helena blvastsky comes to mind

[@MadlandsMedia]

It's not a super civilization it's just a note advanced civilization than hunter gatherers he proposes

[@mnomadvfx]

@@MadlandsMedia Let's get real it fluctuates depending on what he think sells better at the time. Sells being the operative term here.

[@Jon-pw2ik]

@@MadlandsMedia LOL...A single, worldwide, civilization that built megalithic structures all over the world is just a note advanced civilization at the time of hunter/gatherers and not a super civilization?!? Lol. Weird.

[@paulconnelly640]

Does Hancock still stand by his contention that there was an advanced civilisation on Mars? He wrote a book about that.

[@ThersitestheHistorian]

He still advertises the book on his website, so he presumably stands by his claims.

[@bldbar118]

It’s a very cynical reading of his intentions, but I agree he is flying well past the evidence. I think cynical motives are present, as they are in everyone, but I think he is genuinely excited by the possibilities more than anything, and gets carried away smoking pot and writing crackpot books for AM radio. Hippy scientist yes, grifter I think not as much, but I grant your points about how slipshod his research can be.

[@ritris5165]

The problem I have, is that the books is almost 30 years old, if ones going to 'discredit' someone, discredit the current work, not what was written 30 years ago. Not to mention, the small point that governments now openly state that there are anomalies that are not from this world, Now if one pressures that axiom 'aliens do exist' which doesn't seem that implausible, as multiple government officials from multiple governments have stated such, so it's not so far out to make a claim that there are constructions of some sort on Mars. Entirely viable argument, given the axiom: Aliens do in fact exist

[@homersimpson2159]

On what planet is he a scientist? He's a conman plain and simple

[@ritris5165]

@@homersimpson2159 your pretending to be Homer Simpson, stfu

[@Neeeg]

Hancock is a journalist and never claims to be a scientist.

[@Slipperygecko390]

Yeah its all very well and good saying that. But the truth is in all of his work and interveiws a good deal of time goes into slandering archeology and academics around it. Thats inexcusable and even if he has good intentions for his own work, he sure as hell doesn't have any regard for others and their work.

[@noisepuppet]

Stoner sci fi writer with a posh accent and zero shame who decided he could make more money pretending his story premises were true, and boy, was he right. He's also the perfect guest for pseudoscience talk show jamborees like the JRE, where you can say pretty much anything that sounds good, and the host and audience will act as if it somehow obligates academics to disprove it.

[@KEW-pd1jn]

They can’t logically just come out and ask people to join their efforts. Yet they can dangle the mystery in front of everyone and make it interesting enough to look into

[@joelmosier125]

31:15 It's ALWAYS about the MONEY!! Yes! The publisher ALWAYS ask: But can it SELL? Profit,Profit, PROFIT! I highly suggest you don't think alot into this book too much. Good stuff though. Joel Mosier/J.Terran Author of ANCIENT MYSTERIES REVEALED.

[@Anglomachian]

It’s kind of sad, and I’m trying not to do it just in case it leads me to overlook things, but a lot of what this grifter does send up instant red flags to me. Doing things like casting aspersions upon a significant part of, or indeed the entire scientific community, with no evidence other than nonsense allusions to their supposed insincerity, moral depravity, and/or lack of connection to some supernatural BS, is beyond disingenuous, it’s insidious.

[@DocBree13]

In his debate with Dibble he said he does not claim that extraterrestrials built the pyramids, or that a worldwide pre-younger dryas civilization existed. I guess he’s changed quite a bit since this book was written, or more likely, what he claims has changed. I commented on the Rogan video that his strategies resemble those of Christian apologetics, as well.

[@williamchamberlain2263]

But he still advertises the book on his website, so he _does_ still stand by it

[@ozar_midrashim]

" he said he does not claim that extraterrestrials built the pyramids" True. "or that a worldwide pre-younger dryas civilization existed" False. He still believes that, his documentary "Ancient Apocalypse" is about just that.

[@portlandtwowheels1872]

The part that's really scary is the amount of people who believe these conspiracies. Watching the Joe R. Podcast and reading the comments of "Graham Hancock changed my life" or "I wish I had a history teacher like him" etc is the part that's scary. The dude hardly has a background in much of anything related to science but portrays himself as an expert. Stefan Milo, who does have an archeologoy background and education, debunks his claims using the latest research. With evidence and of course logic. Thanks for pointing him out as I've been following him for years. You have a new subscriber!

[@GozerTheGozerian]

The "OMG he changed my life" thing from credulous fools drives me crazy, and we saw the same sort of thing going on with COVID, for example in the video where a doctor goes to a school board meeting in some town, claims he's an immunologist (he isn't) and proceeds to berate them for wearing masks while he vomits 10 minutes' worth of vaguely scientific-sounding claims that are clearly nonsense to anyone with basic critical thinking skilks, but have just enough of a veneer of "science" to fool imbeciles. So many people responded with comments like "He opened my eyes!" and "This is the truth they're hiding from us!" and of course "He changed my life!" People like that have no concept of what the scientific method is, are extremely susceptible to conspiracies, and are unable to articulate a coherent explanation for why they believe something, but they're also so profoundly ignorant that they'll dismiss actual experts who have devoted their lives to a particular discipline. As far as Joe Rogan, only people who are misguided and/or ignorant would trust a former game show host and MMA clown for medical advice and information on heady topics.

[@Trumpforeever]

Are you sure you read the book, don't be jealous sport,left wing lunacy at its finest.

[@frankwren8215]

I have never seen someone take so long to say "I'm upset".

[@thucydides7849]

Ironically, It took you 12 words to say “I’m upset”

[@brandonwhite4992]

@@thucydides7849 took this dude 1 hour and 15 minutes 😂

[@stu2333]

You can feel his rage in his voice, keeps mentioning Hancock's wealth. 🤣🤣

[@johncarroll772]

@@stu2333 got to love snake oil salesmen and the dummies who part with their money 💰

[@pranays]

Delusional comment.

[@dharmabum1925]

Calling Graham Hancock a 'grifter' just shows how devoid of meaning that word now is, and how cynically it is used.

[@waynemyers2469]

You're right, he's a conman, not a grifter.

[@davidwatson2399]

Snake oil salesman also fits Hancock.

[@waynemyers2469]

@@davidwatson2399 Yeah, except the snake-oil salesman, at least, gives you something for your money...

[@TheDirtyhabit]

Graham Hancock : Thersites the historian's grifting exposed.

[@liamconverse8950]

How is Thersites a grifter, you're delusional

[@johndavidnew]

Its a fact* that spin dictor Carl Sagan wrote his hit song, "Little Miss Can't be Wromg" about Graham Handcock. *falsifiable

[@xelionizer]

btw.; I think the word "grift" might be a little too subtle, in describing Hancock's money-making-machine XD

[@mnomadvfx]

@@DG-iw3yw There's some serious nepotism at work there, his son has an exec position at Netflix.

[@Slipperygecko390]

@@mnomadvfx He is in my opinion a very Narcissistic person who gets a hard on from slandering arcehologists and manipulating people into being his followers. Grahams believers behave like a cult.

[@Thecountofstgermaine]

He worked for the Rothschild owned economist

[@timmullen7703]

You’re Hancock videos pop up from time to time and I have to watch them every time 😂 you have great content sir!

[@ThersitestheHistorian]

Ha, glad to know that something from my channel is getting promoted by KZbin.

[@sonoliv07]

Stack a bunch of rocks together and carve them in ways to look cool. Yeah I’m out…

[@Fiddling_while_Rome_burns]

Very good analyses, working professionally in an archaeological field would add, I read Handcock's Fingerprints of the Gods many years ago. His tactics are excellent, to try and come across to the reader as the voice of reason. He will give his (outlandish) view then say, all we have to do is test it, but the archaeologists (villains) refuse to do this, surely in science you test stuff to see if it is right or wrong. This is all very reasonable to the reader and leads the reader to wonder why the archaeologist wont test this idea.... He then moves to stage 2 of the con, and suggests as the archaeologists won't test this theory, do they have an agenda to cover up the truth..... reversing the rolls now archaeology is a conspiracy and he is fighting against a conspiracy and his readers too are the sensible people opposing conspiracies. Also basic human curiosity is sparked there is a truth out there about our great monuments such as the pymamids I want to know what the archaeologists are hiding from me.... Finally he moves to the third and final stage, he then casts himself in the roll of benevolent revealer of this secret hidden truth and all you have to do is pay him money to get it..... Sometimes archaeologists challenge him but the problem is archaeological truth tends to be anti-climatic to the fanciful mindset of his audience. The pyramids were built by Egyptian conscripted labour, not ancient Atlanteans.

[@LukeChaos]

@chefaopt Actual geophysicist gives a good talk about that here; watch?v=559K616ohaI Anyway, it's impossible to separate the "claims" from Hancocks grift. Here's why - in science you say "hmm. these water erosion marks look different from what we expect. let's test them, and keep in mind everything else we know from history, linguistics, archaeology, geology, astronomy, physics (you get the picture)". But Hancock says "these water erosion marks look different, so *all of those other disciplines are false, or involved in a conspiracy to trick the public*". Even if we could not explain the water erosion *yet*, that would not mean that the mountains of other evidence about the Egyptians suddenly disappeared. You remember those "faster than light" Neutrino experiments that "contradicted everything we know about physics", and turned out to be a measuring mistake? Same thing.

[@LukeChaos]

@chefaopt Thanks for the link - that video you linked by Sephen Milo was a good distillation of what I meant; I recommend watching it again and paying very close attention to what he says about erosion, and also to the multi-disciplinary evidence in the last half of the video.

[@helenaj9436]

Oh. But the science backing it up. 🙄 Oops, your bad.

[@xmathmanx]

ooh, the claim to authority, is that one of the tenets of science? if you're a scientist that means your words are truer than mine?

[@tylerhouston7013]

@@xmathmanx does a guy with a basketball in his hand deserve as much respect as LeBron or mj? Experience matters, doing things that represent value in the field matters, and proving yourself to be a liar/fraud who attempts to grift naive people also matters. Stop crying that your "theory" doesn't get respect. It's not that everyone else is a big meanie, its just because you have no valuable points to make and create noise for the sake of it

[@wesdavis6942]

lot of hate for a reporter. def touching a nerve with the "intellectuals".

[@spatrk6634]

graham is a fraud. you fallen for his scam. now you are mad because random people on youtube are exposing "intellectual" for a fraud he is

[@wesdavis6942]

@@spatrk6634 im not mad, i think its hilarious. ever since john anthony west and Dr. robert schoch went to Egypt and dare question the Egyptology time line the intellectual establishment has freaked out on guys like graham. and then they found gobekeli tepe. then they found the cave in the Altai mountains. then they discovered that the oldest glyphs ever found are in colombia south america. all people like graham are saying is this stuff needs to be understood deeper. the backlash for that is immense. its laughable.

[@spatrk6634]

@@wesdavis6942 yes. nobody takes pseudoscientists seriouslyyy.. yea. and none of those discoveries provided evidence for people like graham.

[@FrostekFerenczy]

People generally hate liars like Hancock.

[@billstapleton1084]

I have heard these arguments before. When Chariots of the Gods came out. scholars and College professors attach the author. Yet at no time did the author say "this is the truth". No he asked questions that these same scholars and Professors did not want to have to address. Hancock does the same thing. Why do these people get upset? They make money selling their books on college campuses. Have you seen the prices of text book at a college book store?

[@FrostekFerenczy]

So, you're going to use "he's just asking questions" defence? Seriously?

[@billstapleton1084]

@@FrostekFerenczy Read the book. Have you? He asked questions the church does not want to answer.

[@prince-solomon]

Hancock's critics and detractors most often mischaracterize his position. As he states often, he is NOT an "ancient astronaut" advocate. He is NOT saying the bulk of modern archeological results are wrong. He IS saying there is enough unknown, enough unexplored, enough evidence to warrant a CONVERSATION about the possibility. You claim he is often vague and makes unfalsifiable hypothesis when in fact that's exactly why he is so appealing, he doesn't say "This is exactly how it is i'm 100% sure" but "There are unanswered questions or not answered well enough so let's take a closer look from a different perspective". He also often states in interviews that he regards it his job to bring up ALTERNATIVES to the mainstream, instead of staying in line with the mainstream narrative and not dare questioning anything. He doesn't claim that his alternative theories are 100% correct, but it is the starting point for more research and a conversation. What's so "embarrassing" about that? If mainstream gives good answers with the necessary evidence, great. But often it turns out mainstream has theories that are built on very shaky foundations, but those theories are accepted dogma and therefore not to be questioned. It's right and good that he challenges dogmas. What's wrong about it? Look how violently opposed archaeology was for his suggestion (and John Anthony West & Robert Schoch) that the Sphinx is at least 10,000 years old. Because there was no evidence for a megalithic culture from that time...until of course Gobekli Tepe showed up on the global stage. Btw: embarrassing? grifter? nutter? If that's the low level you are starting with, i have no need to watch the video. Having a professional analysis or whatever you are trying to do requires actually acting professional or at least civilized. Whatever you think about Graham, he has a right to state his opinion and write books like all of us do. People find it appealing what he has to say, so be it. At least he keeps his discussions with his detractors civil. That's something you should learn.

[@CoffeeFiend1]

I'm at 55mins now and had to take 3 breaks so far as it's honestly absolutely mind-melting how fallacious this guy is. I've followed Graham for decades but actively seek stuff that challenges him, I do it with other people in the same related spheres too. Honestly probably 95 times out of 100 it's just misrepresentation and strawmanning intermingled with completely incoherent tangents into racism and other prejudicial twaddle. He also constantly gets shamed for adapting to new information which is just....I can't even. Occasionally there's a little nugget that stands out as valid which is really half the reason I maintain the position of listening to his detractors. The other half being of course that you shouldn't ever follow people on faith alone, that's the antithesis of science and reason. So I gave this guy a shot, but fuck me the volume of absent context is breathtaking. He even sounds nervous and unsure of it himself and I'm familiar with the manner of other videos.

[@theEpicxY]

40:40 @ThersitistheHistorian the technique youre looking for is called "reframing" it is one of the techniques they learn in Neuro-Linguistic Programming. (NLP). I also have a friend like yours but ive come to understand that its not about the conspiracy per se...its about "initiating someone" then becoming their "mentor" aka in nlp its a type of brain washing. theyre very manipulative

[@goldenbrownish]

He got up in the assembly and attacked Agamemnon in the words of Achilles [calling him greedy and a coward] ... Odysseus then stood up, delivered a sharp rebuke to Thersites, which he coupled with a threat to strip him naked, and then beat him on the back and shoulders with Agamemnon's sceptre; Thersites doubled over, a warm tear fell from his eye, and a bloody welt formed on his back; he sat down in fear, and in pain gazed helplessly as he wiped away his tear; but the rest of the assembly was distressed and laughed .... There must be a figuration of wickedness as self-evident as Thersites-the ugliest man who came to Troy-who says what everyone else is thinking.[6]

[@Slipperygecko390]

@@goldenbrownish slurp slurp slurp

[@mikem.s.1183]

It's been 2 years since the release of this video, but in regards to Hancock maintaining his cool... He was rude and abusive on Joe Rogan when addressing Shermer. Out of nowhere. Just a reminder. PS: just noticed that you focus mainly on "right wing" audiences. So, with THAT focus you firmly establish that you deserve as much credit as a charlatan like Hancock. We've seen plenty of left wing nutters defend Hancock on his Netflix series. We've also seen left wing atheists defend him ferociously and attack what they believe are religious people attacking him. Instead of coming from your political ideology you should focus solely on debunking or exposing this charlatan. He has supporters on both the Left and the Right. Everyone who is anti-science (those who are pro flat earth, anti space, anti evolution, anti biology) or want to force a certain anti established facts view are on his side.

[@RelivingHistory1]

I agree

[@mrsev765]

Well, Getting high is not his evidence in any of his books, so you have either never read an of his books , or being incredulously salacious.

[@ethanwilliamson782]

And you didn’t watch more than 2 minutes of the video, clown

[@thinginground5179]

@@ethanwilliamson782 shut yo mouth

[@JamaaLKellbass]

Graham, the sci-fi writer. far from reality. very far.

[@cattymajiv]

Regarding your question at 4:20 (by coincidence, LOL!), of what that tactic by your friend is called. It's called GASLIGHTING.

[@OfficialRetroUk]

I LOVE how you make such a broad assumption about Joe Rogan's audience. what a baseless claim, I HIGHLY doubt you have any data backing your own claim up.

[@TheSirPrise]

"I HIGHLY doubt you have any data backing your own claim up." HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! The irony! Like Hancock uses evidence for his claims?

[@virginieschmitt2704]

It does not take a genius...

[@Quixote1818]

LOL. He got under your skin didn't he.

[@davidleomorley889]

Science, unlike Graham Hancock's ridiculous claims, requires peer reviewing and a very close examination of one’s claims by others to see if those claims actually hold up to everyone's scrutiny. Graham and his followers on the other hand, just ignore the scrutiny of others. That's part of his attraction to his followers. They love to see him as a rebel, as an outsider who is discovering new things and defeating the “mainstreamers” who doubt their hero. It feels empowering to feel like you’re in on his secret discoveries and defeating the system. You can see happening in the comment section of any of the KZbin videos he is in. He is a rebel hero...to lots of inexperienced people who get taken in by his b.s. Also, because of the internet itself, there is now an entire tribe of other misled people who have found each other online and who can engage each other on social media sites, which makes it almost self perpetuating. Unlike doing something like believing in Santa Claus as an adult, it doesn’t cost them anything socially to keep believing in what makes them happy, regardless of how accurate it actually is. Most of you guys who fall for Graham Hancock’s stories get so wrapped up in what you heard from him that it's nearly impossible for you to let go of it anymore or maintain any healthy skepticism. You are only interested in the excitement and emotional charge you get out of being told about "lost civilizations" and "impossible mysteries." To give into the method of science at this point in time, after months or even years of being fans of the “alternative,” you would have to simultaneously admit to yourself that you might have been tricked, which is hard enough to face, let go of something in your life that has been getting you really excited and that stirs your up your runaway imagination, and also you would have to examine the subject in more depth and learn more about it, something that you probably weren’t/aren't really interested in, in the first place. When Graham Hancock says something like: “Egyptologists can’t explain __________(fill in the blank)…that’s enough for you. You have no interest in fact checking it or investigating his claim. You guys always remain on the surface level of any of historical subjects that you are told about because you are basically scientifically illiterate. Graham Hancock is more than willing to stir you up...telling you his stories…feeding your emotions and your runaway imaginations…and ca$hing in your inexperience and your willingness to believe whatever he tells you. It’s actually sad and pathetic to watch.

[@lucasoheyze4597]

Joe Rogan's audience are pretty gullible.

[@anniealexander9911]

I suspect that this book had more to do with cashing in on the X-Files than the Mars mission. I was about 16 when X-Files started on TV and it had a huge cultural impact. While the conspiracy theory aspects you mention may now be found in the alt-right they where largely apolitical in the 90s. However, all of us who were in our teens and 20s in the 90s watching X-Files are now in our 40s and 50s. I do wonder to what degree the XFs mythos plots provided the primer for the butter butters of the 2010s and 2020s

[@hannibalb8276]

Very true. But in the last 20 years the far right has co-opted conspiracy theory thinking in a very weird way.

[@swagikuro]

Life is hard and dull for most people, believing is this wacko shit gives them a sense of wonder and the idea that they have something over other people, whom they are often envious of for having better lives than they.

[@nikolaihanuschak191]

🤣

[@swagikuro]

@@nikolaihanuschak191 right?

[@Dundoril]

That's probably a big part if it.

[@redweed4018]

What I want to do is stop Graham Hancock from asking pertinent questions about anomalies standard archeology either cannot explain, refuse to explain, present oversimplified or unrealistic explanations for. My main goal is to stop Graham Hancock from earning money from his work. #Make Graham Hancock Homeless (MGHH)

[@ApacheMagic]

Haha nice satire

[@mccari09]

I don’t know why but I find myself just shaking my head at most of what you have to say

[@ocean34560]

exactly, you have no idea why because you believe complete nonsense spewed by graham. You have no objection to what this man said, you just blindly follow things that seem appealing to you.

[@Arthem6]

@@ocean34560 you nailed it. he must be a rogan fan

[@MadlandsMedia]

@@ocean34560 ditto to you

[@vladtheimpala5532]

The reason you’re shaking your head is because you’re hearing information which conflicts with the lies you’ve been told. Fanciful tales of lost civilizations are interesting and appealing. People like to feel like they’re privy to esoteric knowledge. The information in this video exposes the lies and it doesn’t feel very good to realize that you’ve been lied to, that you’ve accepted those lies and that the truth is not as interesting as the fanciful fantasies that Graham “The Grifter” Hancock is selling.

[@shaolin1derpalm]

Ive read your comments in other threads. It's not hard to figure out why.

[@1man1bike1road]

Its depressing that so many fall for these grifters

[@yingyang1008]

Neil de Grasse Tyson is another

[@ThoughtandMemory]

@@yingyang1008 you wish.

[@FrostekFerenczy]

@@yingyang1008 - Don't be silly.

[@yingyang1008]

@@FrostekFerenczy Einstein is hilarious also - space time, yeah OK bro

[@JMM33RanMA]

This video is very interesting to me for a number of reasons. When I grew up, it was a great improvement to replace your manual typewriter with an electric one, electronic ones, like Canons, not to mention computers and printers, were over a decade away. I had moved up to junior high and was tired of the insipid kiddie stuff in the library, so I got my mother to write a permission letter to access the YA department. They noticed that I was quiet and serious and was interested in Isaac Asimov [science and science fiction], and soon stopped monitoring me. I was interested in aliens, UFOs, Atlantis, possible lost civilizations, etc. I didn't restrict myself to YA. Where similarities with this video appeared was in the history section. I found and read the writings of the infamous Error von Dummkopf* whose name has been disguised to protect the guilty, batty and grifting. I think the book's title was something like, "The Chevy of the Gods." I was a J.H. kid, and I could tell the "thought process" was dumb and the so called evidence was nonsense. Everything said about Hancock seems to be true of EvD as well. An old cave drawing of a stick figure with something in its hand with a semicircle with short radiating lines above couldn't be a spear in the hand or a feather headdress, or sun representation, no, it must be a gun and a space helmet. And, of course, the truth is only in these books that tell what scientist and government conspirators want to keep secret. I thought, "Do adults really believe this crap? It should be in the fiction section, not history!" It wasn't until much later that your remarks about grifter pastors occurred to me, too. I had just read something by the famous William Lane Craig, and was astounded that he was famous even though his work contained logical fallacies, and the same technique noted here. First make a suggestion, vague reference or the like, then later use this "supposition" as fact and proof of concept. There was also the same misuse of science or facts, like, 90% of people who get cancer drank milk as children, therefore milk causes cancer [this is not what was actually used, but is typical of the backwards thinking]. If videos had been a "thing" back then I could have made a video like this. One thing about Eric von Dummkopf's work was that it caused me to wonder about the landing strips for spacecraft in Peru. I got a book about the Nazca Lines, which was fascinating and went into real archaeological detail. The "landing strips" BS didn't survive real information about the sites, the construction and the other details. Of course people like Hancock don't expect people to think through what is presented or investigate the real [i.e. rational and scientific] facts. Where I disagree with this video is that I do not think these people are "harmless." Far from it, they try to water down school curricula, and promote very harmful anti-science beliefs, about vaccinations, epidemics, climate change and the like. They promote magical thinking, conspiracies, and oppose critical thinking.

[@pranays]

You forgot it is dangerously close to Nazi Mythology.

[@shaolin1derpalm]

Modern definition of critical thinking:. Generally accepted science (except for what they use everyday...)= guv'mint. Guv'ment lies.

[@gyrateful]

In Cheapos of the Gods, "Could these be landing strips for alien space craft?" Then someone took a picture with a coin for scale, and the bushes and trees in the photo, were obviously tiny lichen growing on the rock. The Gods had very small chariots; smaller then an ink pen. I got my start with Asimov et al, as well. I read all of Asimov's sci-fi books, and then, after exhausting my library of all sci-fi, read his science-fact books. As a 15 year old, I saw a copy of Chariots of the Grifters, and quickly knew it was bull dung.

[@JMM33RanMA]

@@gyrateful Don't use useful fertilizer, dung, for worthless, useless product! We seem to have followed the same trajectory to rationality and critical thinking.

[@TorianTammas]

@@shaolin1derpalm Some people know about the evidence based scientific method and know that peer review uncovers mistakes or even if someone wants not to play by the evidence based rules. This is why we have working smart phones, the internet and not stone tablets with incartations to call for cthulhu.

[@Bondrewd_The_Based]

Some people don't understand why the tone of videos or articles like this, as in: stuff debunking lunatics like Hancock, tends to lean toward harshness, frustration, or anger. It's because people like Hancock are infuriating to debate with, especially online. There's only so much you can take of people looking at proven fact or logic, but sticking their fingers in their ears and believing nonsense before you start to get frustrated, too.

[@tybgycfmb8697]

youre the grifter here buddy, nice paypal link hahaha

[@lastjedi9442]

😂😂😂 true

[@ulverup]

Yeah, because Graham sells his books for free.

[@FrostekFerenczy]

Graham won't send you an Xmas card for feebly going to bat for him.

[@GeneTickles]

I do think he is a passive aggressive rageaholic. 😅 he is much like a religious apologist.

[@bryanbagayas8447]

Thank you for making this. I admit I got hooked into his claims when I watched his JRE interview and didn't scrutinize his claims. But lately, the algorithm suggested legitimate archeology and history channels like yours that debunks BS claims like his. Thank you for the work that you do.

[@Slipperygecko390]

Same here. As soon as you realise how real archeology is considerably more interesting, detailed and compelling. And that the people in it are very good genuine hard working people. You can't help but have a bit of hate for Graham and the wool he pulls over peoples eyes.

[@dadduorp]

I’m convinced Joe Rogan takes a grift cut from his show guests considering how large of a gullible audience he has. Not quite the level of Alex “Stay Hard” Jones, but some of the batshit crazy stuff I’ve heard to come from here is laughable, if not dangerous. But hey…if there’s a buck to be made, right?

[@exiletsj2570]

This early book is very heavy on the woo woo. A lot of his newer work is highly speculative but also interesting, with some evidence, or at least loose logical extrapolation. I do read his books more like fiction, there’s still some compelling (or engaging) hypothesis in them though. I don’t think he’s a deliberate grifter, just very heavy on the woo.

[@jonathansoko5368]

I do think hancock is wrong, alot but I also thing he's uncovered quite a bit of some things that have weight but people use his drug use and openness to the woo woo to dismiss it all. And any person who claims to be scientific, at any level, knows that's not healthy either

[@pardontillinghast4989]

His approach is still the same; come up with some insane idea from getting high then look for evidence of it. That's not how any sane person operates.

[@pardontillinghast4989]

@@jonathansoko5368 but all of his garbage is based on justifying his own woo woo.

[@ugadugaga4972]

Well, he actually believes the "super" society was a bunch of psychic humans with sacred geometry. He just writes less nonsense to make it digestible

[@danielmassey6687]

Your kung fu is not strong Hancock and accurately predicted the discovery of the haiawatha meteorite crater find and younger dross mass extinction event

[@williamchamberlain2263]

No, Hancock glommed onto existing geological hypotheses that were proposed back in the 1910s, and existing conspiracy theories that were proposed in 1923-1945. But he does _not_ propose any new hypotheses, or provide any evidence.

[@abdelrahmanwael2551]

the pyramids of giza were covered in white limestone so no they were not red; however, there is one pyramid called the red pyramid further south

[@BucketClinger]

One of them was two tone with red casing stone. We know because some of it is still on there. They call it red, because it is.

[@Slipperygecko390]

@@BucketClinger It used red granite, it isn't actually red.

[@Maputi_na_Kalabaw]

I love it when grifters debunk grifters for the sake of grifting.

[@altrifrancobolli]

thanks dad

[@jdmran]

Graham says he’s not a archeologists. He’s a journalist. This channel is operative for main stream archeologists.

[@chrisneira4306]

I've never heard of this before

[@2msvalkyrie529]

It's a conspiracy to prevent you from discovering the Truth ....

[@troyevitt2437]

I heard him on Art Bell two or three times and he was on of the most outlandish guests of Coast 2 Coast.

[@goldenbrownish]

He got up in the assembly and attacked Agamemnon in the words of Achilles [calling him greedy and a coward] ... Odysseus then stood up, delivered a sharp rebuke to Thersites, which he coupled with a threat to strip him naked, and then beat him on the back and shoulders with Agamemnon's sceptre; Thersites doubled over, a warm tear fell from his eye, and a bloody welt formed on his back; he sat down in fear, and in pain gazed helplessly as he wiped away his tear; but the rest of the assembly was distressed and laughed .... There must be a figuration of wickedness as self-evident as Thersites-the ugliest man who came to Troy-who says what everyone else is thinking.[6]

[@cattymajiv]

@@goldenbrownish Do you really find it fun duping us into reading garbage?

[@isisneteru1013]

Haha....I used to love Coast to Coast with Art Bell back in the day. Graham Hancock was actually one of the most sane ones on there. There were time travelers, people living with aliens and bigfoot and others warning that Planet X/Nibiru was going to crash into us... buy survival supplies now. Hancock was pretty tame

[@preemptive74]

I'm glad I found this. I saw him on Rogan and found him abrasive. I don't know why Rogan likes him so much. I thought he was full of it too.

[@jonathanjeffreys3007]

Thank you for an extremely interesting and informative video. I love it that you have adopted a pseudonym from ancient Greece. Very apppropriate, considering that you stand up for common sense and fight aginst ignorance and stupidity. I have to admit that I had never heard of ayahuasca. I have no plans to experiment with it. I doubt if I would have been deceived by Mr. Hancock's views on the influence of Mars, since I possess a nasty cynical streak and a naturally suspicious nature. However, it's always nice to know what to avoid.

[@cultureshock5000]

confirmation bias abound in these comments....ide be interested to see whats on all yalls book shelves...

[@waynemyers2469]

@@cultureshock5000 Of course, I always examine my bias when urged to do so by someone who uses terms like "all yalls" and spells I'd, "ide". As to my bookshelf, well, you'd probably be a little confused by it, many of my books don't have pictures or word-bubbles...

[@goldenbrownish]

He got up in the assembly and attacked Agamemnon in the words of Achilles [calling him greedy and a coward] ... Odysseus then stood up, delivered a sharp rebuke to Thersites, which he coupled with a threat to strip him naked, and then beat him on the back and shoulders with Agamemnon's sceptre; Thersites doubled over, a warm tear fell from his eye, and a bloody welt formed on his back; he sat down in fear, and in pain gazed helplessly as he wiped away his tear; but the rest of the assembly was distressed and laughed .... There must be a figuration of wickedness as self-evident as Thersites-the ugliest man who came to Troy-who says what everyone else is thinking.[6]

[@routeman680]

@@cultureshock5000 It also of course abounds among Hancock and his followers.

[@matthewknight7594]

Excellent deconstruction of Graham's strategies. Especially about how he molds himself to his immediate audience. He really is heading the way of Elron Hubbard. I can see him starting is own religion at some point

[@MadlandsMedia]

You're a moron to compare him to L Ron Hubbard. (The correct way to spell it. ) he is a journalist asking questions and presenting alternative logical hypothesis to earth's history. Not a cult leader. The only dogma involved is your own.

[@matthewknight7594]

@@MadlandsMedia oops. Spelling mistake. I recant. Clearly my analysis is completely inaccurate.

[@themysteryofbluebirdboulevard]

It's fine. Elron is what the scientologists called him in Spanish speaking countries.

[@ianwilliams7080]

I can’t help but notice those trying to debunk Hancock focus on things other than facts. Face it, we know very little and he could be right.

[@Ben942K]

"We know very little. Hancock knows plenty."

[@Ben942K]

@doggone Did you see the quotation marks? lol

[@jellydamgood]

@@Ben942K no he doesn't. Nor anyone in particular. His theories are probably full of shit, but anyone believing that modern humans have full and clear knowledge of the past is on the same level as believing in flat earth. The Roman Empire isn't even that old when put in contrast with the history of humanity and there's already so many things we do not know about them. While I 100% do not believe Hancock's spiritual theories I do believe that modern archeologists are full of themselves and have grown used to smelling their own farts.

[@waynemyers2469]

Facts are "things".

[@goldenbrownish]

He got up in the assembly and attacked Agamemnon in the words of Achilles [calling him greedy and a coward] ... Odysseus then stood up, delivered a sharp rebuke to Thersites, which he coupled with a threat to strip him naked, and then beat him on the back and shoulders with Agamemnon's sceptre; Thersites doubled over, a warm tear fell from his eye, and a bloody welt formed on his back; he sat down in fear, and in pain gazed helplessly as he wiped away his tear; but the rest of the assembly was distressed and laughed .... There must be a figuration of wickedness as self-evident as Thersites-the ugliest man who came to Troy-who says what everyone else is thinking.[6]

[@frozenbananarama]

Hancock spent seven years diving in dangerous waters to write Underworld. You didn't even bother reading the book you're criticizing, and you are calling him lazy? Another thing, why did you pick this book to critique, not one of the newer ones? Low hanging fruit.

[@davidk7544]

So, to add credibility to the argument that Hancock is saying nonsensical things, one must spend more time diving...

[@jayczech78]

this guy is stupid, he will never understand Hancocks work, he is a sheap beliving everything they served him at school, never done any psychidelicks, than criticizing people that actually done them, this gyu is a joke!

[@FrostekFerenczy]

He's had a couple of decades to get a PhD in archaeology, and hasn't done that.

[@Noah_jen]

Why attack someone so aggressively for simply presenting an alternative point of view? A sad shame

[@scienceexplains302]

*“No evidence for the civilizations Hancock claims”* And no evidence for the civilizations that would have to precede the advanced civilizations he describes.

[@We-Are-Scoobs]

Graham has forgotten more than you will ever know,

[@TheGoddon]

Dialogue from a Netflix movie.

[@liamconverse8950]

I used to like Hancock but after reading one of his books researching more things I have to agree that he is a grifter.

[@liamconverse8950]

How much of it is fact and not fiction though?

[@davidk7544]

A very solid statement, with no possibility of measurement or verification. Perfect for Hancock.

[@Quixote1818]

Graham even ADMITS his stuff is fiction.

[@MrWebsie]

I can only laugh, this is ridiculous. The liar here is you sir.

[@ansfridaeyowulfsdottir8095]

He no longer avoids personal attacks, he's always attacking archaeologists and historians. {:o:O:}

[@The_Real_Danger_Mouse]

In Hancock's own words, "I'm just asking questions." He never presents evidence. He picks something up, ignores the research past and current, and then asks, "Why isn't anyone looking at this anymore?" Answer: "Because Mr. Hancock, we have high-res pics from infrared to Ultraviolet as well as ground radar surveys." He then resorts to faith apologetics and unprovable claims. His hypotheses, being unmeasurable, are not science. If he wasn't so boring, he could have been a fictional writer.

[@huasirr]

I’m sitting here listening to you ramble on, pondering the validity of your claims… I was listening with a critical mind, as I do like to hear opposing/ differing and new views of all subjects of interest. I Didn’t even get through “Hancocks Formula” slide …. At roughly 8mins, before I had noticed YOU just enact every one of your own dot points. I hope the irony of this does not escape you. I’m not saying I agree with Hancock, nor think his theories are entirely based on fact. He definitely makes some big leaps, also tends to let his literary license get away from himself, on many claims. I had not heard any of his Mars theorist until your video. I doubt there is any valid points he makes in relation to Mars. Now I haven’t read this book, nor any of his fiction novels, but I have seen and listened to hours and hours of his work regarding ancient civilisations from around the world. It turns out, over the years, he has hit quite a few bullseyes. He has made some connections that “academia” or “scientists” simply did not ,nor would/could not make. I have seen this so many times over the years. In many fields of study. Academia and the supposed experts end up being chained to the dogma, the whims of funding committees, or the inability to face the fact that their own opinion, and sometimes life’s work has been incorrect. By now, you would be labelling me a “right wing conspiracy theorist” That “label” is something pseudo intellectuals, and ignorant /incompetent scientists love to throw around At anyone that disagrees with the dogma of the day. I could carry on, tear apart your whole Ideological theory (trust the science), about everyone being low I.Q, right wing Conspiracy theorist’s. But it would be a waste of both of our Time. You simply do not seem to have the fundamental knowledge to understand what I would say…… Unless you did this video in such an advanced psychological mastery, in which you prove your own judgements. by presenting them, in a way that is a perfect example of what you are claiming hancock guilty of. If it was not done in an ironic way, your time would be much better spent psychoanalysing yourself. The science, society, philosophy, history, archaeology,, quantum physics, astrophysics, construction techniques, stone carving, agriculture, geo-politics, engineering and chemistry. zoom out, and Zoom in Maybe then, if you are really looking for truth, and not just putting others down, You may leave a completely different view. Also, You are projecting. To the fullest extent, but don’t seem to realise that. On a positive note, this video is a perfect example of “Dunning/Kruger effect”- you don’t even know what you don’t know. ~ if there is typos, and grammatical errors ☝🏽 this was typed on my phone with a shattered screen and could only see about 10 words at a time.

[@waynemyers2469]

Wow, what an extraordinary example of an Ad Hominem approach to criticism and one rendered all the more fascinating by your reliance on a technical-failure to explain your literary deficiencies. I think I'll take a leap here and theorize that, despite your feigned disinterest in his work, you are one of those rabid G.H. sycophants who worship at his altar and sacrifice to his particularly absurd theories. Allow me to introduce a thought into your obviously water-damaged brain: If someone calls you an ass, ignore them, if a second person calls you an ass, think about it, if a third person calls you an ass, buy a saddle. I say that only because, after reading your post, I can safely say that AT LEAST two other people in your life have already told you you're an ass...

[@Mossyz.]

I will come back here again in the Future . :)) Hello evry1

[@chris1963a]

As someone who is undecided on Hancock and who is actively seeking arguments for and against, you might be interested in my criticism of the intro to this video. It's the same criticism I have of so much of the media coverage of him. You call his 'advanced civilization' theory outlandish, but give no qualitiative refutation of that argument, and for God's sake enough with the Ayahuasca shit it's a cheap trick and irrelevant. If someone raises a specific criticism of him and proceeds to offer no supporting arguments, it raises a lot of red flags

[@chris1963a]

Update after watching the rest of the video: the arguments against Hancock's Mars theories are substantive and I think they're relevant to his wider narrative. On the other hand the derisive and personal nature of the video raises red flags. My take is that, ironically, a large portion of people who buy into fraudulent theories actually respond better to substantive arguments than bullshit.

[@jayczech78]

agreed!

[@KneeSlice1775]

It makes sense that someone who thinks Hancock is credible would comment before the video is even over. Jesus just listen to the arguments being made. The one making outrages claims (Hancock) is the one who must prove what they are saying. This video is very tame and to the point. Stop being offended on behalf of snake oil salesmen who you must be foolish to buy into.

[@chris1963a]

@@KneeSlice1775 I'll respond to your 'points' in order: 1) Like I said at the beginning of my post, I'm on the fence about whether or not Hancock is credible. As for commenting on the video before it was over, I specifically commented on the intro, which was over. Then I later commented on the rest of the video, after it was over. So not sure what your issue is with that 2) I would agree that Hancock needs to defend his claims -- but he does! In all his videos! That DOES NOT mean his claims must be true, but he gives all kinds of qualitative arguments. My point, which went over your head, is that if someone is criticizing Hancock's theories, they should ALSO provide qualitative arguments. In this video there was a mix -- some qualitative arguments, but also some personal, irrelevant, and red-flag-raising statements. 3) haha not sure why you thought I was offended, I am not. And as previously stated, I'm on the fence about Hancock, so when you say I buy into his 'Snake Oil' you're not making much sense. At the end of the day, if the maker of this video seeks to discredit Hancock (or for that matter if you seek to discredit me), you will not be successful by making general non-qualitative statements or personal statements -- we will not respect your opinions, much less be convinced by them, unless you offer arguments that use reasoning and rationale

[@FrostekFerenczy]

> but give no qualitiative refutation of that argument There's zero evidence for it.

[@erictaeger9943]

I think Hancock is right, for asking questions that people are afraid to ask. I think he is on to something. How can we possibly know everything about human history unless you take chances. Think out side of the box. We need people like Hancock. How will we dig deeper if we stop at the first thing we find. I believe the evidence will speak for itself once it comes to fruition. Graham Hancock please keep doing what your doing. Ask those difficult questions.

[@carlosa.9533]

What questions he has done that actual historians or archaeologists haven't?

[@michaelbrodsky]

He just got a Netflix series, so apparently there’s always somebody that eats this sh*t up!

[@SEIKOAE86]

You are obviously one if the Shape Shifters 🔥

[@pranays]

@@SEIKOAE86 pay more attention in school child.

[@macgonzo]

His son works at Netflix, nepotism at its finest...

[@jemshadow123]

Hes a best selling author..so hes just used that to sell his "documentary" to Netflix..just another grift move to keep making money and generating interest in his "work"

[@jayczech78]

what is the name of it? I want to eat it!

[@helygg8892]

Hes said that he's left his work as is while his beliefs have changed dramatically over the years and said he'd not be updating anything other than maybe adding a before section explaining how he's changed his ideas but leaving the over all library of work as is because he stands by his work even if he doesn't back those ideas any more so I don't understand why people are so out to get this guy and countless people profit off of him by constantly making videos putting down his work as if they aren't out to make money either it's like sadhguru said "only when I started charging did people start staying"

[@helygg8892]

@@waynemyers2469 im not sure what your trying to say but his wife is from Malaysia his family is mixed ethnically and he's never once praised the work of Adolf Hitler and as a comparison is ridiculous and I'm really confused how hard it is to research someone yet people go around calling the guy out and I'm truly confused as to why when he's literally just giving the details of his research

[@waynemyers2469]

@@helygg8892 Apparently, I didn't know what I was trying to say either, that would account for that stupid comparison and I apologize for that. However, the reason for my lack of decorum is quite simple and though it doesn't justify a badly worded comparison to Hitler, it does have some substance: Similar to some Archaeologists and historians of the past (the kind, oddly, who Hancock so often criticizes) Hancock seems reluctant to accept indigenous cultures as those responsible for building the monuments that fascinate him so much. According to him the Olmec didn't build their temples or carve the huge stone heads that litter the jungle and their neighbors didn't build their pyramids or study the stars and the North American tribes didn't build enormous mounds to observe the stars or lay out and build the Serpent-mound and, oh, the Egyptians didn't build the Great Pyramid and blah, blah, blah...the most credit he'll give those people is that they DID do the building but it was with the knowledge brought to them by survivors of some world-wide catastrophe or the sinking of Atlantis, kind of like laborers hired to build a mansion at the behest of and with instructions from the rich landowner. Even worse, in the case of Atlantis, especially, the Culture that was really (his theory, not mine.) responsible for these miracles of construction came from a suspiciously Mediterranean, Greek-like island whose politics, war-making and general society mirrored those of the Greek city-states. Are you following me? Good, because it seems to me that what we're reading when we read a Graham Hancock book or listen to him pontificate on someones podcast is simply a rehashing of the historical-racism that infested Academia 100 years ago, the same infestation that bent the facts to such a degree that even today if you point out the fact that Egypt was in Africa and the Egyptians were almost certainly black you'll get an argument from every nut-job on KZbin. Are you still listening? Good, you can blame yourself for this diatribe, anyway, you could have just left me alone but now I'm seriously pissed. Anyway, don't you think it's a little funny that people are so eager to leap up and defend Hancock but they never seem to think of defending all the ancient tribes of men who, because of people like Graham Hancock, don't get the credit they deserve for all their grueling, back-breaking labor? Yeah, black people or brown people or red people couldn't have built all that stuff because, well, because they aren't... I think I'll let you finish the sentence... Again, let me reiterate, I'm not comparing Hancock to Hitler, although racism is racism no matter how expensive a suit you dress it in and I'm certainly not attacking his family, their ethnicity or anything like that, I'm sure they are wonderful people...Hancock is a lucky man.

[@helygg8892]

@@waynemyers2469 I don't think I've ever heard him deny the local population of their historical achievements he has said countless times that people were simply put "more advanced than we think they were" and the POSSIBILITY of cultures not just one going around spreading the knowledge of their people and that knowledge being absorbed by the local communities. Racism is prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized. We are where we are because of different groups, cultures, and religions. he has never based anything he has said on discrimination or marginalizing people or prejudice so anyone calling him racist or comparing him to a racist is just plain ignorant. I'm not backing anything the man says as absolute fact he finds the things mainstream academia tends to just let slide or ignores because "we simply don't know enough" yet the moment someone looks into it, in this case Hancock. They are flat out wrong or racist. Silly world silly argument. The only racist left in mainstream society are the ones calling people racist for damn near every reason while real racial injustice gets swept under the rug and bubbles up in ugly ways. Again silly world silly argument.

[@waynemyers2469]

@@helygg8892 You're right, the world is silly, just as silly as you going on as if you know the man and almost as silly as your "I'm rubber, you're glue" defense of Hancock which is what you mean when you say that the only people accusing others of racism are racist...wow, you are the Houdini of social-interactions and, I'll bet, a racist by your own definition. The rest of your post is irrelevant and we can just end this here but if the idea has lodged in your head at all, you'll never read anymore of his work or see his face without thinking about what I've said here...

[@helygg8892]

@@waynemyers2469 lmao you literally just did that defense to me 😂 I've said nothing racist I just gave you the literal definition and pointed out he doesn't fit it. Nor do I for that matter, and I assume you know him on a deeply personal level to speak about him yourself then and say he is one thing or another? Right? 🤔 It's all fun and games until you look in the mirror. I have no issue with Hancock or academics or anyone for that matter I just find people like you hilarious so quick to throw the race card down but never have a solid play back just "racist because I say so" no actual proof no video or recording or witnesses to say Hancock is a literal Nazi or a literal racist and hates this group or that no just hollow baseless accusations based on your boredom and lack of individual thought just going by the Twitter feed to be apart of the pack.

[@Moredread25]

Peaceing out at the end continues I hear. Hancock to me is inoffensive, but I get the need to debunk him. His claims sound good and are tempting because they're telling you something you want to hear. Who doesn't want to fantasize that there was some lost civilization and we're getting some insight into lost secret knowledge that we can somehow use to better understand history? It's important to point out the basic logical fallacies that pseudo-historians use so that you can snap back into critical mode and remember that the 'evidence' they may point to back their claim could be used to back many types of falsifiable claims and claims that can't be tested are mostly worthless.

[@martingilvray06]

The floor with what you are implying, is that the evidence is there for a Technically advanced civilisation that pre dates our currant one . Ancient Aliens does not cut it for me , and it takes away from us what we were capable of in the very distant past.

[@chesterdivish1005]

@@martingilvray06 i love currants too! very delicious

[@martingilvray06]

@@chesterdivish1005 I like the nuts with the currants and I need glasses.

[@shaolin1derpalm]

Exactly... WHO doesn't fantasize and want it to be true. According to Graham Hancock, every: Archaeologist Paleontologist Geologist Astronomer Scientist Contractor

[@joelmosier125]

40:21 To answer your question: Speaking speculative about a subject, yet then later declaring it to be factual. This (Technique) is called: Filler stories/Filler up the book with meaningless speech to add more words to the book to gain approval with the publisher for publication. Just Buy my book it's How I (Gram Hancock) gets Paid. J.Terran Author of ANCIENT MYSTERIES REVEALED. I do Not own any of his books.

[@tonytigervarley]

Erm no, I trust graham, thanks

[@thinginground5179]

Yeah, Graham has spent over 25 years studying this work, plus he's a far more open-minded individual and states ideas for the betterment of modern society. What's this dude, err, some American dude sat in his office with a stain on his shirt.

[@kennethdwyer804]

Graham knows what he's talking about while u r talking shit!!!

[@brothervipus5]

This guy blows

[@JamaaLKellbass]

Graham, the sci fi writer. that guy? wow, no thanks. pseudoscience.

[@gary_stavropoulos]

LibertyChap nothing in your comment is a reason to take Graham seriously, every thought you expressed was fallacious.

[@promark5317]

Hey Thersites what did you think about that Hancock/Dibble debate? I Felt embarrassed for Hancock watching it.

[@picahudsoniaunflocked5426]

I don't smoke but there's something so deeply satisfying about a long deep hard thorough thoroughly-deserved debunking that makes me feel like a post-coital cliché 1970s New Yorker cartoon punchline afterwards. Ahhhhh.

[@prince-solomon]

There is "debunking" and there is "smear". There are also "debunking" videos on how Earth is actually flat, there never were dinosaurs and we never went to the moon. So be careful with anything that says or claims to be "debunking" anything. Often it's opinions presented as facts.

[@thedopaminestop2355]

This isn’t a debunk. This is a disgusting use of ad hominem arguments from a chronically online Reddit scholar.

[@bluewatson4341]

Thank Christ we can finally put this mongrel to rest

[@bigwinkler]

As far as the "Alternative Archaology Researchers" go, I think Graham Hancock believes what he says and wants to become a famous author and credited for finding something that changes the world. I think he's a bit arrogant sometimes but I think he believes in what he's selling. That's just my personal belief and I have been a bad judge of character of people from time to time so it's whatever lol

[@alicedeeper]

I don't share that belief, but one cannot see what another person truly believes or not. It's just that the timing and his marketing really points towards him taking advantage of sensationalism and conspiratorial thinking.

[@Slipperygecko390]

He's more interested in the contraversy and the whinging about archeology that actually studying it. Watch his body language on Joe Rogan, when the whinging starts (usually about half way through when he's done repeating the same thing he's said for ten years) He gets all giddy about it, thats his favourite part. Nothing but a narccisist

[@bigwinkler]

I'm starting to see these people in the same way as psychics and fortune tellers now unfortunately. Already, if I watch a documentary and they mention Edgar Cayce, all credibility is lost for me and I shut off the video lol

[@JamaaLKellbass]

wow. that guy says a lot of bs everywhere!

[@Wallyworld30]

So many Hancock simps in this comment section. Anyone who takes Graham seriously can not be taken seriously. Yes, that includes Joe Rogan.

[@thinginground5179]

I suppose we'll forget all of his ideas for a better modern society where we choose to make sovereign personal decisions over our own body then? Sure, there's a few sides of his work that aren't 100% reliable. But his work on ancient cultures relationships with entheogenic plants is full of wonderful facts -- and lessons to be learned. His stance on the modern world and psychedelics is the good side of him. Okay, I'm a Hancock simp, that's fine, he's a cool dude anyway.

[@crabbitwife5463]

Graham "what if" Hancock. Like many I read some of his early books with interest. Cultural imperialism is his major tool. These primitive people could not have done this therefore a greater advanced technology must exist. What if this, what if that. I just regard him as background noise now. His recent series had many unintentional laugh out loud moments only convincing to Joe Rogan and the like.

[@ronniesunshine1115]

Thanks for your analysis of this book and the Hancock phenomenon. You seem hostile at times and unfortunately resort to name-calling, but you lay out clearly Hancock's arguments and strategies and faulty reasoning. I have generally enjoyed reading Hancock's books, but I've taken them as a form of Romantic fiction. The whole movement and publishing industry around the Lost Civilization theme has become a quasi-religion (even more so with the Ancient Alien denomination) and I'm happy you point out the parallels between their method of argument and religious apologetics. I don't know if Hancock is a grifter or not, but taken as a theory, the idea he has presented through many books has produced no historical knowledge. At best, it only pushes the question of the origins of civilization back in time.

[@pranays]

Hancock is a rascist liar. He deserves the name calling.

[@shaolin1derpalm]

Graham Hancock puts people on blast all the time. He deserves it.

[@str.77]

"the idea he has presented through many books has produced no historical knowledge. At best, it only pushes the question of the origins of civilization back in time" If Hancock could prove that, he would have produced historical knowledge. The thing is, he doesn't.

[@dagothhyde7297]

"I don't know if it's true. It doesn't sound true. I'll take his word for it because it doesn't matter."

[@maxzorin9425]

I'm pretty that the ability to discriminate fact from bullfact... matters a lot.

[@TheRogi22]

I've repeatedly heard him call himself a journalist and is always speculating I've not read his books but I've never heard him say he has any proof on anything

[@Slipperygecko390]

and yet he is always claiming the Archeolgists have no proof and are wrong, that is a claim of proof right there.

[@RelivingHistory1]

Can't believe Reece James is an avid history fan

[@hamishmctiaigh4363]

In regards to the evidence he's offering I'd go even further and call it a "pile of evidence". Or even a "steaming pile of evidence"

[@chrisamon4551]

Another excellent take down of grifter Graham Hancock

[@garytucker5748]

Probably has friends iat BBC Bristol!!

[@jarrodreaves243]

Seems like people get mad when people get hustled bohoo

[@adilkeys9771]

Thank you for making this video!

[@LunchPuppy]

A monetised video criticising an author for making money of the back of others. Oh the irony.

[@virginieschmitt2704]

Scale, people, scale.

[@FrostekFerenczy]

Weak butthurt from a Hankook follower.

[@Wallyworld30]

When Graham Hancock was confronted and backed into a corner on JRE he would repeatedly use I'm not a scientist I don't make these claims I'm just a reporter. He will never have a spine to defend his own claims he always used that sameout.same out. Hancock is spineless grifter not worth anyone's time. I do like Randall Carlson though as his claims are all based in science and he will defend his claims with evidence.

[@sskspartan]

bro, the archeologist got totally destroyed and embarrassed in that episode, he had very stupid opinions

[@Wallyworld30]

sskspartan You must be a Science denier. I’d venture your a Trump supporter as well and have a hot take on Covid to boot?

[@JuanLopez-rl7ry]

@@Wallyworld30 What is wrong with Trump?

[@Wallyworld30]

Juan Lopez History will study this presidency for hundreds of years. How is it 40% of Americans can’t see huge flaws in this man? If we didn’t have a horrible Pandemic he was pretending wasn’t real I’d truly be fascinated but this crazy experiment couldn’t have been done at a worse possible time. Republicans are supposed to be the Christian party yet they elect the first atheist president. Being atheist isn’t a flaw but again fascinating the Republicans would do that. He’s a cult of personality like America hasn’t seen since JFK.

[@sr.cosmos4543]

@@Wallyworld30 you have a serious condition sir, it's called TDS (trump derangement syndrome). Seek professional help as soon as possible.