https://www.imdb.com/title/tt22807484/

Looks like Neflix wants to go the same route as Discovery Channel, moving from science documentaries to speculative fiction dressed up in all the same old bullshit clothing of 'challenging orthodoxy'. The reality is that he's just making up stories and then selectively choosing bits and pieces to cobble together. I've read all his books, and despite what supporters say, there is no substance at all to anything he ever claims, yet the way it's dressed fools people who just aren't educated in any relevant field.

It's the exact same format as Creationism - the mere fact that an 'alternative' nominally exists, in the sense of the contrived fictitious claims, means there's a controversy in the field, and all those supposedly learned, established, and accredited experts are closing ranks and minds, not that they're simply too fucking knowledgeable to fall for this guff.

The blurb of each episode gives away a lot more information than intended.

- Graham visits Gunung Padang... to find proof of a lost civilization
- At Gobekli Tepe,..., Graham questions if simple hunter-gatherers alone could have built such an advanced structure.
- Graham visits ancient mounds in N America and wonders if they contain astronomical significance or even warnings of an apocalyptic event

So it's a 'documentary' where a journalist trots around the globe wondering and questioning and somehow projecting incredible technological sophistication (and stupid simplicity) onto ancient peoples whose great knowledge means they could see into the future and leave us a warning.

A not so ancient apocalypse is Netflix's subscriber count. If this is their desired path out of that, then I will be happy to wave them off as they plummet.

I have little time for episodic teleology.

Same here, I don't watch crap like that but I remember seeing this huckster on the Joe Brogan show. Also crap, yes.

"Hancock’s son, Sean Hancock, coincidentally works at Netflix as a senior manager of unscripted originals."

https://www.whats-on-netflix.com/news/a ... ocuseries/

I wonder just how coincidental that is.

Seems a much, much, much more reasonable consideration than the streams of fantasy speculation contained in that expensive production.

I'd think that anyone capable of making a logical inference probably isn't watching the show in the first place.

Well that damns me!

I'll make an exception for those just hate-watching it.

Ooh look what just dropped. I usually don't follow debunking videos like these anymore, but since it's Stefan Milo, I'll take a look/listen. (I've been subbed to him since well before the plastic spoon days. )

So much in that intro echoes many of my own experiences. One example there is the point that just because one is critical of how information is being used - the argument it's being applied to; that doesn't mean one is against the information itself - this is a motte and bailey style counter I see all the time.

Finished the series, and well, I think I could make a show 10 times the length just showing what's wrong or borked.

The most interesting thing for me is that what Hancock believes is exactly what I used to believe, with all the same information and references...

... when I was 12 years old.

Spearthrower wrote:Well that damns me! :D

After your review I would not watch it but was curious so checked imdb and who are these people?

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt22807484/r ... _=tt_ov_rt

Their demographic!

Males 30-44 = 1,190 positive reviews out of 4,873 total reviews with most of the remainder of positive reviews being the age adjacent male cohorts.

That's depressing. I don't have Netflix but I made it 3/4 of the way through Stefan Milo's video above, and I get idea. No need to seek out the program, it's a waste of time and will probably only make me angry. The truth and reality of pre-history is exciting and mysterious enough without a need to lie or embellish. Go to hell Mr. Hancock, with all due respect...none.

I met a really nice chap at a party who was happily surprised, having brought up the topic, that I knew so much about Hancock and had all his books... only for that to turn to disappointment when he asked me what I thought about it all. That's 20 minutes of cognitive dissonance that's going to haunt him for a while!

I find that I need half an hour for Hancock.

15 minutes for Hancock and 15 minutes for yourself?

Graham Hancock and his wife Mora Hancat?