Fig. 1

My Netflix docuseries Ancient Apocalypse (, stirred up a hornet’s nest when it was released on November 11th 2022. Immediately – in some cases even before viewing the series – archaeologists mounted a furious response consisting almost entirely of deeply offensive ad hominem vilifications depicting me as a promoter of racism and white supremacy, as a peddler of conspiracy theories, and as a danger to the general public – see Fig. 1 (links provided at the end of this article) and Fig. 2.

An early promoter of the smear campaign was Professor John Hoopes of the University of Kansas. Indeed so excited was he at the prospect of vilifying me that on October 25th 2022, more than a fortnight before the release of Ancient Apocalypse, he offered his services to the media to comment on the series and specifically on how “Hancock’s writings align with and reinforce white supremacist dogma”: (see Fig. 3). In the same press release we also learn that Hoopes has been familiar with my work for more than 30 years and that he has written “scholarly as well as public commentary” about me.

On November 10th 2022 I appeared in Episode 1897 of the Joe Rogan Experience together with my friend and colleague Randall Carlson who features in Episode 8 of Ancient Apocalypse. We talked about the series, and the likely opposition from archaeologists, and the notion of holding a debate was floated. Randall and I had taken part in a previous debate on the JRE – back in 2017 with sceptic Michael Shermer and others – and we welcomed the opportunity for a further encounter.

But who would the new encounter bring together? Two of us presenting the alternative side of the debate would require two on the orthodox side to respond. While we were considering possible candidates Ancient Apocalypse continued to ride high in the rankings all over the world (Fig. 4) leading to further anger and resentment amongst archaeologists and growing demands, channelled through their supporters in the media, to have the show cancelled. In the UK, for example, The Guardian described Ancient Apocalypse as “the most dangerous show on Netflix”, existing “solely for conspiracy theorists”, and asked: ‘WHY HAS THIS BEEN ALLOWED?’

Nor were journalists exaggerating the reactions of archaeologists. On November 30th 2022 the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) published an open letter to Netflix demanding that the streamer remove any labels “that state or imply that that [Ancient Apocalypse] is a factual documentary or docuseries and reclassify this series as “science fiction.” (see Fig. 5).

Professor Hoopes is prominent within the SAA. In addition to the 30 years he claims to have spent studying my work, he curated a thematic section of the SAA Archaeological Record in November 2019 (Fig. 6) that focussed on “debunking” my most recent book America Before: The Key to Earth’s Lost Civilization. And since the release of Ancient Apocalypse he has been active in offering interviews and comments on my work across a range of media. Clearly, therefore, having devoted so much of his time to studying me, John Hoopes is better qualified than perhaps any other archaeologist to offer a solid, well-researched critique of my work.

For all these reasons, and because he frequently announces that his aim in confronting pseudoscience is to correct “the public vernacular perception of archaeology”, I thought it only right and proper that Hoopes should be the first to be offered the opportunity to defeat me in a face-to-face, one-on-one debate (Fig. 7). I assumed that he was confident of his own views and would jump at the chance not only to refute Ancient Apocalypse but also to win a great victory for archaeology on the biggest talk show on earth in front of an audience of tens of millions.

I also had a personal reason for wanting to debate Hoopes first rather – for example – than some random archaeologist with whom I had no history. I’m married to a woman of colour, I have four mixed-race children and seven mixed-race grandchildren and Hoopes’ very public campaign to link me with racism and white supremacy had deeply offended me. I felt a responsibility to my own good name and to the honour of my family to hold him to account.

I expected a robust reply to my December 4th challenge from such a robust critic, so I was genuinely surprised and disappointed when Hoopes turned out not to have the courage of his convictions, offering only a flimsy and contrived excuse. “I can’t debate metaphysics with science,” he declaimed, “and I’m not interested in debating your metaphysics with any other metaphysics.” Grandiose at first glance, this statement proves on examination to be mere sophistry – and laughable sophistry at that from a man who has hitherto taken every public opportunity to smear and ridicule what he calls my “metaphysics” yet suddenly, when called to defend his position in a face-to-face debate, develops a severe case of cold feet.

What makes the whole situation even more peculiar is that Hoopes is clearly not refusing to debate as such. On the contrary he appears to want to debate me – but only from the safety of his keyboard, cheered on by his small band of Twitter followers. On December 6th, I commented on this contrast between Hoopes online courage and his unwillingness to debate face-to-face (Fig. 8). His reply – “If there’s something you’d like to discuss, do it here on Twitter just like everyone else does” – made my point for me by once again seeking to shift the forum of the debate from a one-on-one encounter in front of a global audience of millions to a Twitter exchange in front of an audience of a few thousand (Fig. 9).

So this is where matters stand at present. The idea of a high-profile, high-stakes debate between mainstream and alternative points of view around the themes explored in Ancient Apocalypse was first raised on November 10th 2022 on the Joe Rogan Experience. On December 4th, after three weeks of unrelenting mudslinging on Twitter by John Hoopes – including an offensive jest at the expense of my wife (Fig. 10) — I formally offered him the opportunity to be the archaeologist to debate me face-to-face on the Joe Rogan Experience. On the same day, Hoopes declined. Finally, two days later, on December 6th, he suggested Twitter as the forum for any further discussion.

Twitter will not do, and nor will any other exclusively online forum. After the popular success of Ancient Apocalypse and the universal scorn heaped upon the series by archaeologists, it’s high time for a full-throated in person debate between proponents of orthodox views of pre-history and proponents of well-reasoned alternative views of prehistory. Such a debate might not settle the matter once and for all, but it would definitely mark a quantum leap forward in public education about the past. When John Hoopes ducked out he recommended US historian Dr David Miano to take his place. Duly noted. And British archaeologist Dr Flint Dibble (Fig. 11) writes that he’s also willing to engage. Duly noted. Indeed, since my wish to hold Hoopes to account for his smears and slanders has been frustrated by his funk, I’d like to offer the floor to both these gentlemen at the same time and to suggest that they form the nucleus of a team of four who can speak for the orthodox view of prehistory and will be opposed by a team of four, myself included, who will offer evidence-based alternative views.

The upcoming Cosmic Summit conference in Asheville North Carolina in June 2023 will be the ideal venue to host such an ambitious debate and I hope that both Flint Dibble and David Miano will agree to participate in it — all expenses paid of course. Because the theme of the conference is the role of cosmic impacts in human history and prehistory, I respectfully suggest that these two gentlemen should include Dr Mark Boslough (Fig. 12) in their team. He is a long-term opponent of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis which plays an important role in Ancient Apocalypse.

Randall Carlson and I have volunteered to form the nucleus of the “alternative” team and will be reaching out to other potential participants in the near future. There will be much fine-tuning to do – debate format, filming of the debate, Q&A sessions, etc, etc. We hope to be in regular and constructive contact with the “orthodox” team as these details are worked out.

An interesting point raised by Mark Boslough (Fig. 12) is the alleged failure of proponents of alternative views of prehistory to “show up” at scientific conferences “to debate scientists”. In a separate tweet, but in a similar vein, he lambasts “pseudoscientists” for failing to give “presentations at conferences sponsored by professional scientific organizations.”

Well, Dr Boslough, now’s the time for you to right that wrong. Please nominate the scientific conferences you have in mind where I and other “pseudoscientists” – as you call us – can show up and debate scientists. Contrary to your view, we are very keen to participate in debates “sponsored by professional scientific organizations” and wouldn’t hesitate to make ourselves available if we were formally invited.

I note that many members of the public were puzzled by Hoopes refusal to debate and that there have been calls to find a scientific/academic forum where Hoopes and his colleagues might feel more comfortable than in front of millions on the Joe Rogan Experience (Fig. 13) Kim Chapman (Tholos History) even speculated that I’m “too scared” to debate an archaeologist in “an academic setting”.

Far from it Kim! If John Hoopes recovers from his cold feet he would no doubt be welcome to join the “orthodox” team in a debate with me and my colleagues at Cosmic Summit in June 2023. And I think it’s an EXCELLENT idea that there should be a follow-up (or even prior) debate in an academic setting. Commentator Dr Umb suggests the Oxford Union, Sharon Greenfield suggests UCLA, Jack suggests the University of Toronto, Magnus Pharao suggests the Royal Society. I hereby give formal confirmation that I and my colleagues will be willing to participate in a respectful, open debate at any of these locations or at any other academic setting that John Hoopes, David Miano and Flint Dibble care to make available.

I asked John Hoopes to put his money where his mouth is and debate me one-on-one on the Joe Rogan Experience. He declined. I have now offered to expand the debate to four-on-four. I have offered a public setting for that debate (Cosmic Summit 2023). I have confirmed that I and my colleagues who advocate alternative views of prehistory will be willing to participate in a subsequent or prior debate in an academic setting. I take note of the several suggestions for such a setting (Oxford Union, UCLA, U of T, Royal Society). And I have also noted that if Hoopes, Miano and Dibble prefer any other academic setting, and make it available for the debate, then I and my colleagues are ready to participate.

Once again, all the orthodox side has to do now is put up or shut up.

Fig 1 links

Wales Online

NB before WoL unpublished it the original url was here:

The Times

The Guardian

The Conversation



Weirdly the video that is claimed to “sink” Ancient Apocalypse is simply the Netflix trailer for the series.


Finally (headline not featured in the collage) The Independent writes: “The documentary has raised concerns over Netflix’s own complicity in disseminating dubious or misleading information. More than this, however, it has made a compelling case for the value of the UK’s publicly owned broadcasters.” [Note, for US readers: In the UK “publicly owned” means pretty much the same as “government owned”].

56 thoughts on “Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is”

  1. drew says:

    Graham quoting Professor John Hoopes, an Anthropoligist well-versed in early Meso-American culture:
    “I can’t debate metaphysics with science,” he declaimed, “and I’m not interested in debating your metaphysics with any other metaphysics.”

    I’m wondering if John understands where he is coming from in learning about and observing an ancient culture still in existence, and translating his and other’s understanding and observations into a modern context where myths, legends and beliefs aid in not only building and evolving a culture but also remembering where that culture arose from in the first place.

    Or does he blindly observe ancient constructions that a culture assigns to ‘others’ responsible for their existence, and has no thought about who ‘others’ actually are? That is akin to learning about a legend a Meso-American culture as being a story that has no background…someone just made it up one day because they were bored…

    1. DALE A ROBINSON says:

      Looking forward to more shows like the Netflex series from Graham. He is a threat to their existence.

    2. AJ says:

      Someone probably did make the creation story up at some point. Time and time again we see religion as a basis for reinforcing social inequality – take Mesopotamia in all its forms where a deified king or a king who has direct access to the gods is allowed to rule over a large group of people because he has that religious grounding; take Ancient Egypt using a similar principle. If you research enough you will find that most religions were originally founded for the social and material gains of certain individuals who gain power from it.

  2. John Eickhoff says:

    So many archaeologists seem to me to be very closed minded. I think Mr Hancock should be given the respect he deserves. A respectful discussion with his opponents would be great. Unfortunately I’m sure a debate with such people would be difficult to say the least

    1. Buba says:

      That’s the MOST telling aspect: They protest the mere idea of it without respecting the intelligence of the listener and debating the merits, as there are so many. Forget Graham. They are disrespectful of those of us these theories apply to, us humans. If you can’t defend your position, as well as Graham, des they loose.

  3. Peter Phoenix says:

    Excellent series. Keep digging Mr. Hancock you’re getting ever closer.

  4. Victor Soledad says:

    Excellent Graham! continue your work and I’ll wait for the second seasson! Go ahead! Cheers 🥂

  5. Tom McGuire says:

    Bravo, Graham. Well explicated! Can’t wait to see how this plays out. Your team may be the underdog, but you will win hands down. It’s so obvious they are shaking in their boots.

    1. Robin Maxwell says:

      Not only are they shaking in their boots, Tom. They are jealous as hell. Which of them has a #1 hit Netflix series? Which of them published so many brilliant, New York Times and international mega-bestselling books, and has a huge cadre of dedicated followers?

  6. Josh C says:

    I find it hard to believe Netflix themselves would not be open to hosting such a debate – as it would clearly generate many more views and tons of publicity for them, even more than has already been generated from your series. Furthermore, I cant imagine any of these academics and archaeologist people wanting to avoid the sheer amount of exposure from any Netflix production, if they truly consider their position to be “more intelligent” or “more accurate” or whatever the case may be. Such exposure would go a long way in selling books, getting jobs, etc.

    Its also somewhat interesting to see your (imho) most tame and least provocative theories being publicly rejected and lambasted with such vehemence from so-called “established academics”. Ancient Apocalypse is a good series, but its barely scratching the surface of the research you have presented over the years; and again the presentation itself seems much less controversial than any of the random ‘Gaia channel’ type new-age nonsense that is all over the place, not to mention the various documentary series on actual UFOs and other paranormal phenomena which are extremely popular these days.

    It seems quite clear that all these overly dramatic explosions of highly triggered outbursts is directly tied to the imminently fragile egos of these academics themselves. Simple evidence and basic facts speak for themselves; since their undeniably obvious nature does not require interpretation, but rather only a willingness to see it, rather than ignore it. However once you venture beyond the realm of easily grasped facts and evidence, the ideological and narrative basis of such interpretive exposition becomes the primary focus and (in fact) is the very basis of the world in which such academic theorists live their entire lives. The interpretive ideas are their position, the ground upon which they have built everything which they claim to “own” as discoverers or whatever they regard themselves to be. As a group, the archaeological institution has a consensus world which is agreed upon by all archaeologists, and which they share as the basic narrative from which they all further their own personal ideas and expansions on this fundamental ideological basis which they have inherited from the institution itself. If your ideas are at essential odds with their basic ideology to a certain degree of completeness, the only reconciliation to be had is through the dominance of group consensus – and not necessarily one or the other ideology being “proven” – since theoretical ideas are only the preliminary basis from which to seek proof to begin with.

    Ultimately you are striking at the heart of academia itself, which is most certainly built upon non-scientific methodologies itself. The constant cries of “psuedo-science” is essentially the same as degrading black people with the “n word” – both are attacks on the identity of the other person, and both are essentially meaningless beyond such attacks. In the world of so-called “scholars” or academics, the acceptance of the group itself is paramount. If you do not “belong” to the group by way of their acceptance, your “outsider” status is enough for the group themselves to disregard you entirely. It is a consensus by way of blind and willful ignorance of *anything* which effectively challenges the fundamental building blocks to such a degree that others will have to “go back to the drawing board” (and basically get back to work) – rather than simply standing on their soapbox claiming to be “king of the hill” as some kind of uniquely treasured accomplishment. The key point here is the *effective* nature of such a challenge. If your challenge had was not effective, they would have no problem responding to you whatsoever, because they would be entirely confident in their ability to overcome it. It is their fear of being overcome which causes them to run and hide from you and to disregard what you have to say.

    1. Robin Maxwell says:

      Well said, Josh. Their fear is palpable. It seems that scientists even enjoy eating their own — all it takes is a new, at-odds- with-the-accepted-theory for those of the same discipline to go for the jugular.

  7. Huey C. says:

    Excellent proposal. Debate forum is the hallmark of academia to suss out facts. Better data equals better Science.

    If interested in learning impact physics of the comet plasma-coma, please see:

  8. John T says:

    Now THIS is what I love to see from you, Graham.

    Concise, clear and confident while also polite and professional.

    I was a little worried with all the mudslinging from both sides. Carry on!

  9. Dave Sproull says:

    Bravo Graham!
    My personal choice for debate location would be U of T, but that’s only so I might possibly attend.

  10. Ronald Beaumont says:

    Envy may assume many forms.

  11. Katilei says:

    Dear Mr Hancock,
    Since more than 35 years I admire your work, your tenacity, your passion and your calm, elegant and kind art during your public appearances. I read almost all your books and I was so happy and excited to see you in the Netflix documentary.
    The reaction of the mainstream archeology is understandable. The watchdogs are indeed panicking in front of the truth and the evidence To save their faces (or better, their buttocks sitting on the “academic” thrones) in front of these facts we all yet know, thank you, they will use any kind of propaganda-attack and all kind of impolite, unfair and unethical fascistic methods (far away from a true scientific confrontation!) to destroy you and your revolutionary ideas. You should know that you are not alone in that battle!
    In 2022 after so many new discoveries and independent researches there is no doubt that the “known” history must be completely revised and rewritten and the mainstream archeologists dethroned.

    Thank you, Graham!
    Katilei – Finland

  12. Andrew says:

    Have any of Graham’s attackers even bothered noticing that his wife of some decades, and collaborator, is a Tamil, with gorgeous dark skin darker than most native Africans’, and they have children together? So much for the smears of racism and being right-wing! They have literally gone in as hard as possible on the least likely possible angle of attack and all it does is show up exactly the phenomenon Graham’s work exists to expose: the intellectual bankruptcy, corruption, laziness and media-jealousy of lamestream archaeology and media. Thank you Graham and Santha for your brave and brilliant exemplary humanism. And fuck the haters. They will all be forgotten.

    1. Brent Penfold says:

      WEll said Andrew.

  13. John says:

    The biggest mystery of all is not their denial of truth, its the lack of a passionate innate “need” to know the truth of their own fields.

    1. Scott Malchow says:

      The attitude of wanting to know what happened is supposed to be an important first for the profession.

  14. Hendy says:

    I would really look forward to this, Graham.

    However, I would really prefer a mutually agreed upon moderator of the debate, as well as a proper debate format. The recent Munk debates where Matt Taibbi mopped the floor with Malcom Gladwell were a welcome change from the cable news nonsense of people interrupting each other and being cut off… shrill yelling, etc.

    Lastly, I hope this is recorded live for all to see — with no editing. We’ve seen recently that out-of-context video clips that are popular with social media can be twisted and distorted to proclaim victory for the losers.

  15. Tony S. says:

    Believe it or not, the Netflix Documentary Ancient Apocalypse was my first exposure to Graham Hancock and his excellent research. It is definitely not a work of fiction but scientific in nature.

    I logged into his website after watching his recent Joe Rogan interview with his colleague from the last season of his series. I can’t wait to see the follow-up interview where they discuss in more detail the ancient technology that several researchers have been working on for decades.

    The original researchers that opened heretofore ancient sites were privy to a lighting system that stood the test of time. And no, it was not ancient batteries but an incredible technology suppressed by its discoverers.

    For the so-called academics to personally attack Graham and his work is beyond belief. What happened to their open-mindedness and intellectual curiosity for ideas outside of their own?

    It’s got to be an astronomical ego that blinds and inhibits rational thought of the archeologists attacking Graham or refusing to even consider his theories. A debate may or may not penetrate the fixed ideas of the archeologists, but the viewers will get a taste of the weak minds that the archeologists possess since they are fixated on discrediting Graham even in the face of his very well researched evidence from across the globe.

    Thank you Dr. Hancock for helping open my eyes to the egocentric so-called academics that pass themselves off as pseudo experts in the field of archeology.

    1. Katilei says:

      I warmly suggest you start with reading some of Hancock’s books!

  16. Aloys Eiling says:

    As long as official / university scientists fear to contaminate themselves in case of contact with people who think otherwise, a discussion is impossible. As their truth is indisputable they really believe, blasé ranting is enough as a refutation of an (alleged) conspiracy theory. Outside natural science, science runs in well-armored historically developed and zeitgeisty determined imaginations. In fact, no science at all.

  17. Shawn W Kennedy says:

    Pseudodebate 2023
    …I can’t wait.

  18. Indigoth says:

    Dear Graham, watched your netflix series-too short, you looked rather frail but then i’ve been following your career for 40 years now and the roadblocks you overcame. You are not alone the situation is even worse at the physics/cosmology departments where mathematicians rule and science seen as a hindrance to their fantastical concepts, and despite delivering hard evidence time and again the Electric Universe theory is despised and maximally ignored because basically they say gravity is an extremely weak force compared to electricity. Ouch ! A miniature statue for Newton then but hey they are not even on Wikipedia, yes these scientists are too dangerous for the establishment way of ‘thinking’. Graham you should link up with these guys, Walter Thornhill has some talks up at youtube and go figure these guys have a say on mythology too, you should invite Walter to your Cosmic Summit and expand the understanding of what you are up against..established ignorance.

  19. Anthony Wynands III says:

    Been busy adding new book-review comments to the currently available John W. Hoopes titles for sale on Amazon:

    “Dr. Hoopes smeared author Graham Hancock, accused him of racism as well as other ad hominem attacks, and when Hancock challenged Hoopes to a public debate on archeology, Hoopes backed down, preferring to hide behind Twitter and continue to sling dirt instead of defending his theories in person. Why buy garbage from an author that doesn’t even have the backbone to defend his theories in person? Snake oil.”

    If I was a current KU student in his class, I’d probably look for a new professor. When you read Graham’s article above, then read Hoopes’ KU bio, Hoopes seems less like a professor, more like a character cast alongside Jeff Goldblum and Cyndi Lauper in the 1988 film “Vibes.”

    From Hoopes bio:

    “I teach courses on the archaeology of Mesoamerica, ancient Mayas, the Central Andes, Central America, shamanism, and critical thinking. My recent interests have included the role of archaeology in pop culture and contemporary mythology with a special focus on pseudoscience, pseudoarchaeology, and counterculture narratives. I have undertaken extended critiques of both scientific and popular models, the latter including significant prejudices and misconceptions about indigenous cultures. My research is motivated by a strong sense of ethics, justice, and a desire to help people understand the world in detail by expanding knowledge as guided by informed insight. These inform studies of the human past and challenge assumptions that dissimilarity indicates lack of interaction. I have been critical of traditional geographic and temporal divisions and critique interpretive paradigms from “Mesoamerica” to “chiefdoms” to “shamanism.” I am an expert on the Formative period (the equivalent of the Neolithic in the Americas), Pre-Columbian art and iconography, and as an authority on shamanism am one of several researchers engaged in the study of indigenous sorcery as a form of social control. I have established a reputation as a leading skeptic and critic of pseudoscience associated with the ancient Mayas and an advocate for informed skepticism, critical thinking and evidence-based archaeology.”

    I would suspect that someone who is such an expert on indigenous cultural traditions, so quick to toot his own horn, has made zero attempts to actually partake in expanding his own consciousness from lessons taught by these very shamanic traditions.

    Hoopes may just learn something from Graham. I suggest this authority on shamanism read “Visionary.” He may just actually learn something.

  20. Scott Pladdys says:

    Dear Graham,

    I liken you to a modern J Harlen Bretz; unfairly pilloried by the status quo of academia only to be (undoubtedly) recognised as a trailblazer in future times. I only hope that this time comes soon.

    I would like to thank you for all your works in this arena. I picked up a copy of Fingerprints Of The Gods as a young man boarding a plane for a holiday in 1995; I spent two weeks reading this and doing little else and have enjoyed all your other books since. You have brought a new view on our past to many around the World that demands serious attention.

    As always I look forward to your next project.

  21. jon says:

    Graham Hancock,

    Thank you, for the excellent series, ‘Ancient Apocalypse’, I look forward to the next addition.

    I would also like to thank Randall Carlson, for all of his impeccable work and ‘boots on the ground’ research.

    The truth does not fear investigation.

  22. Andrew says:

    And another thing.

    Graham, in his works, actually does very little* on his own. Yet his attackers treat him as if he is just sitting at home dreaming up this stuff for no reason beyond a desire to be attacked by them. Yet having submerged myself in his books and talks, the single thing that strikes me most strongly is the fact that every single suggestion he makes, every question he asks, is entirely and 100% of the time, based and derived entirely from peer-reviewed, scientific, academic, official, formally qualified, publications of research by scientists, archaeologists, and specialists, each of whom is adept at their own nook of the picture. All he really does is to look at all of it, tell us the picture he sees from their work, and the evidence of his senses. Not once, in thousands of pages, not once have I caught him making stuff up. His insights are obvious once stated. It is not his fault that archaeologists were clueless about Gobekli Tepe until it was discovered and then blew the academic timeline out of the water. It is the academics’ fault for sucking so badly at the one job they have. Man up, learn from the master, and move on. Don’t just sit there flinging poo from your side of the cage. Engage with the man whose work has been vindicated by decades of correct predictions.

    They invented dark matter and dark energy to cover the cosmos they missed. “Dark history” must be the new riff on that jam.
    * by “Graham does very little on his own” I mean, apart from him personally having actually visited every site he writes about in person, multiple times, at his own expense, over decades, on all continents, including hundreds or thousands of dives to submerged sites in all the major seas and oceans, scores of sessions with shamans and their brews, and all the rest. Name one academic or other opponent who has this qualification? Just one?

    1. Robin Maxwell says:

      “Dark History.” You nailed it, Andrew.

      1. Andrew says:

        Ha, cheers Robin.
        “Dark Science” would make a good book title, exposing both (or all) senses of the term in the institutional traditions. Galileo would be appalled that the even the touchstone of truth could be eventually subverted for non-liberating purposes…
        Ontological fraud and pseudo-rationalist poetry, no matter how complex and demoralising, can’t match stuff that actually adds up. What use is it? Any of it?! To us, I mean, not to the New Clergy. lol

  23. Kerry -Anne Traynor says:

    I loved the Netflix show but felt that it didn’t really showcase grahams research adequately…. The metanalysis of climatological, geological astronomical and historical information he has done over 20 yrs was not fully explored in the documentary… I do know you have that appeal to a wide audience but he has so much more in his back catalogue… and yes the archaeologists ( soft science and interpretation , no disrespect)are pretty defensive now because all the hard scientific evidence is now corroborating theories graham first exposed us to 30 yrs ago

  24. Jason Flesher says:

    AS a huge fan of history, I felt that I have been cheated in my life when i seen the other side of the coin. Grahm Hanock has only scratched the surface. The Netflix special is just he start, (fingers crossed). Along With Dr. Hancock, Randall Carlson Should take the next 8 episodes and tell everyone why Grahm’s research is so on point. I never make an opinion cuz I’m an uneducated American redneck. I have learned what i know from life. and I was on the side of ufo’s and aliens as the reason for the megalithic structures around the world. Now, it was a civilization far advanced in life than we are today. What will it take to prove we are ignorant of our own past. Another hit from a rock? I hope not. I will stand with Grahm Hancock and Randall Carlson and defend them to the best of my abilities. This is an amazing time in our history and FUTURE, open your eyes. Dr. Hancock and Dr. Carlson props to you both for all the work and research you have done. I think you should have Joe Rogan and Neil Degrasse Tyson as well as @ others to moderate the debate. Thanks again Gramham and Randall.

    1. Robin Maxwell says:

      I’m with you, Jason, except on one point. Something has happened to Neil deGrass Tyson recently, and his once-open mind has snapped firmly shut. He would be a terrible moderator for any conversations with Graham and Randal. Try to look at some of his recent interviews. He gets to the point of actually raving. It’s disturbing to see — I used to respect the man and enjoyed hearing him expound. No more.

  25. Duane Elliott says:

    Keep in mind the original basis for the science of archeology. It was originally created to prove the inherent superiority of the white race, by showing how stupid the rest of us are, and how their society is the pinnacle of human achievement. It only started to be more serious once they started to notice that its the other way around. By the way many of these “Disciplines” also started out the same way and for the same reason.

    Mr. Hancock does have his biases but they are cultural not racism.

  26. Don Saavedra says:

    Most of Mr Hanckock’s work appears to be supported by the work of Professor Giorgio de Santillana ( MIT) who back in 1961 published his work in a book called “The Origins of Scientific Thought”. The professor also visited the same sites as Mr Hanckock but was more interested in Lore, myths and songs which he then shows in his book to be the same all over the world and to have virtually the same significance .. many of them are shown to be navigational in nature but others also allude to a past civilization of long ago which left an imprint in our psyches of such a magnitude that we still feel their effects today.

  27. Indigoth says:


    Bad news, your sublime efforts have been thwarted in a sea of ‘devious’ ignorance, you are not to blame ! Let’s face it, science has been led astray by the followers of Isaac Newton these guys get to ‘delete’ any opposition to their frankly FANTASTICAL ideas, black holes, neutron stars, the big bang theory, expanding universe, all based on the ridiculous WEAK force of gravity compared to a trillion times stronger force of electricity ! You will not find a page on the electric universe or it’s main advocate Wallace Thornhill, after all Wikipedia is controlled by the ‘right’ thinkers. Sad beyond belief ,obviously all these ‘scientists’ will end up on the scrapheap, having wasted their working life, worse, desperately blocking the truth……
    Despite numerous disaster movies, none came close to what happened to this planet, in fact it’s amazing the human race survived at all, but then afterwards thousands of years later, despite the efforts of survivors to tell, nobody wanted to believe what happened, ah yes those arrogant British Empire knowitalls. Unfortunately Graham has been one of their victims building his impressive castle on quicksand, not that everything is lost but I’m sure he wished he’d been on the just as forbidden right track.
    Incomprehensible gigantic architecture, or is it?

    -as it happens I read an article on Dinosaurs last week, in it it was stated that these giants could never have lived on this planet their bones would have snapped, obviously we’ve found plenty of skeletons so what’s going on, they calculated that earth’s gravity was far less then today about 30%, yes the people behind the article didn’t understand how that could be, another victim of those pretentious knowitalls.
    So let me tell you then Earth together with Mars started it’s existence within the protective sphere of a red/brown dwarf better known as Saturn, it was a golden age on the earth but then without any warning the sun entered the stage with a surplus of energy it ‘blasted’ Saturn out of the way usurping it’s satellites and worse caused Jupiter to shed some of it’s mass for a new electric equilibrium and bingo a new comet was born, one that would cause serious havoc, all over the earth it become known as a goddess of terror but as these things go these days it’s known as Venus and yes i’m your fire indeed as in it’s cometary tail it not only dumped rocks but huge amounts of hydro carbons better known as oil and gas here on Earth found just below the surface.

    Back to Earth’s lower gravity in the past, clearly this triggered gigantism in flora and fauna as found on earth, it is known that these substars fluctuate in their energy output as for how this translate into how electro-magnetism suppresses gravity i don’t know, I’m still waiting on my flying car thanks to those pretentious knowitalls.

    Anyway you should really check Thunderbolts of the Gods site if you want to know more

  28. James Bush says:

    I think that Ancient Apocalypse is an excellent film. Graham Hancock has performed a huge service to our understanding of our past. If Hancock’s thesis does not have legs then it will discredit itself. But it precisely because Hancock has brought together a set of very pertinent facts that his thesis does have substance and is absolutely deserving of respect.

  29. D B says:

    the skeptics guide to the universe is a great podcast. One thing they all agree on is that if there are provable facts that change or invalidate a current theory, they will be the first to adopt them. The Amazing Randi used to offer a challenge of $1 mil (if I remember correctly) to anyone that could demonstrate a paranormal power in a controlled setting. There were always scientists willing to observe any such demonstrations, along with the agreement that should it ever happen, the check would be paid. That’s real risk to your beliefs. There is only reputation at stake here – yet for scientists reluctance to risk that in a debate, makes one question their integrity. Credentials from a university do not make you right or wrong. The universe does not recognize your credentials. The series was enjoyable. I do have questions about some of the assertions, but the universe has shown us repeatedly that “common sense” does not have anything to do with science. Let me pose this as a question: why is it less likely that the earth was hit by a bombardment of meteors causing these massive disruptions, than the big bang that started the universe? We have very strong evidence of the earth being hit by meteors (e.g. craters). We have recent history seen one hit Jupiter. We really do pass through a meteor shower every year. Those are all directly observable facts. Although we do have indirect evidence of the big bang, there is no direct evidence. What makes Graham Hancock’s theories any less valid than those of the credentialed scientific community? Further, lets agree that if at least some of the artifacts aren’t as aged as he believes, why would that invalidate a meteor shower? At the end of the series, the assertion is that the ancient monuments that all seem to be aligned with locations in the sky and times of the year is because of the history of the meteor shower. Why is that explanation less valid than claiming all of these are for religious beliefs only? Even further, why can’t they be both? What rationale prevents that. The argument about a white-racist viewpoint, as far as the series is concerned is ridiculous. I don’t know if Mr. Hancock has books that have a racist viewpoint, haven’t read any. Can only go by the show. You know, observable facts. The idea that one society, after such an event went around visiting other societies and helped them recover is an everyday occurrence today. Why wouldn’t it be then as well? That doesn’t imply that such visitors had never traveled before that, or after. Only that we don’t have those records. I didn’t hear any claims that there was a society that had mastered metallurgy, steam engines, internal combustion engines, etc. I would be skeptical that no evidence of such a civilization survived at all. But a civilization that worked with materials such as wood, hemp, cotton, stone, parchment, etc. that has mastered the block and tackle, rowing, sailing, along with farming, hunting, etc. and helped other survivors of such a major event, with little to no physical record (besides the stones), is very believable. For the myths of someone arriving to help other civilizations, it doesn’t even have to be the same person. Most men are bearded. Who is to say that it wasn’t simply people helping people? When it comes to physical height, if the average height for a group was 5 feet, which wasn’t that uncommon, if another group happened to be over 6 feet, they could easily be called giants. Also, why is not possible that one area of the planet faired better than another, such that there was a better survival rate for such an area, and the people did travel to help others? I have no idea why all those megalithic structures were created (and I’m definitely not an archeologist). If they really do point towards a location in the sky that the meteor shower came from, and designed to provide an annual warning of the repeat of such an event, why is that far fetched? What would stop people that live outside most of the time from noticing the seasons, the stars, the moon, going through phases? If these took on religious significance, even if they didn’t start that way, isn’t really surprising. We have seen examples of that in modern times. I would need to see evidence that any such society possessed enough knowledge to predict the return of a comment in 26,000 years, but would be very easily convinced that markers that create annual reminders and warning of such an event believable, without somehow knowing it won’t happen for another 26,000 years, exist. Further, who is to say that meteor showers we see today weren’t much much stronger then, even if there was only one actual impact. Might such an annual event influenced all sorts of prehistory? And now for my little piece of fanciful theories — backed up by absolutely nothing: if the belief was that such an event might happen again, it is possible that many civilizations attempted to create shelters. That’s not that different from people creating modern bomb shelters. Maybe, (really out there, no facts), the great pyramids were built as shelters originally. Or perhaps pyramids before them were, with the original reason for creating such structures lost over time, giving way to religious beliefs or similar. Perhaps many of the structures, and undergrounds we see were built because of some distant memories that were passed down verbally, getting mangled as they went, but the original reason was because every year anyone could easily see a new meteor shower in the sky.

  30. John C says:

    Graham Hancock, and alternative theories to human history, are simply a threat to mainstream Academic Archaeology. I believe they feel he is not only a threat to their dogma(s), but also the rigid way they do things. In other words, he is a threat to their control over what I now view as an industry rather than a Science. And, perhaps that is too rigid a view as I am sure their are some in Mainstream Archaeology who do have similar alternatives of history but are afraid to stand up in fear of what his/her senior peers would do to their careers. This dynamic within the institution really needs to change whether all of Hancock’s alternative theories are correct or not. Why is it not acknowledged that alternative views actually progress fields of study? New discoveries and new technologies progress other sciences all the time. If they hadn’t, the majority view might still be that the Earth is flat. If we continue going down rigid dogmatic paths, while dismissing valid alternative views out-of-hand, is academic archaeology not ironically doomed to become precisely what it accuses Graham Hancock of practicing? A Pseudoscience.

  31. José says:

    I love the show, and I read a few of your books, I like your work and I appreciate the effort in your investigations, but you gotta drop your defenses. Feels like you are on the defensive all the time, and I understand that, but debating is not the way to do science. If your research holds up it can be picked up by professionals in the field and be turned into actual scientific research. And then let the peer review process do its thing.

    There is no amount of debates that can change anyones view. Only science can do that. Want people to stop calling you a fringe scientist? Submit your work for peer review and let’s see. I get that you are a journalist, but if your work represents the truth, then its just a matter of time before we can prove it. Don’t defend yourself all the time like that, just keep working.

    1. TRB says:

      Jose, your intent is certainly in the right place and what you describe is how it *should* work. However, as scientists in many, if not most, fields of study have been talking for along time how peer review has been turned into ideological protection. The stories related by these scientists about publishing anything that challenges the selected establishment narratives abound and are the same across the disciplines.

      When we delve into the history of what eventually became peer review we find the situation people such as Hancock are seeking here. Consider as an example the geological aspects of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis and how archaeology and its publications reacted (not responded) to something that challenged their chosen narrative of gradualism. We actually see this across many disciplines – this notion of everything is gradual and never has sudden changes or catastrophes. Consider the response to going deeper into Gobekli Tepe: “we already know what we’ll find, no need.”

      For archaeology I suspect the resistance is due to the fact that much of what we know as archaeology is indeed opinion, not fact. The facts we do have are sparse and sometimes not what they are represented as. Is there perhaps a low level, even subconscious, concern among establishment archaeologists that what they are doing isn’t a hard science and their personal prestige would fall if the general population realized how much is assumption, presumption, and opinion.

      Contrast that with. say astrophysics. When something shows up that is new and challenges existing theories, astrophysics as a whole comes eager to explore it. Not say all astrophysicists or that it is a peer discipline without its own issues and establishment, but as a contrast it is drastic. But back to peer review.

      There are many arguments to be made about modern peer review, and they’ve been being made public for over a decade. The “publish or perish” nature of academia is one of the reasons it has been corrupted. You can search for “the corruption of peer review” and find no surfeit of examples. An example that is ironic in this context with the SAA’s absurd aspersions is that it has been used to keep female scientists from publishing, as well as along racial lines. It wasn’t that long ago that it came to light that sometimes the “peer” reviewing the work was one of the authors of the work as well as friends and colleagues! Peer review is a “dark” process in that it is done in secret – the precise opposite of what happened in science before there was an entrenched academic establishment.

      So no, do things in the open. Put all cards on the table and hash things out directly. That is the way to recover, not by using gatekeeping by people who have a vested interest in keeping things that challenge them out.

  32. Phyliss Travis says:

    Wow, Mr. Graham you have hit a nerve and the fear factor of the Academic Archaeology has reached Jupiter by now and headed outward. Great work!!!!!!

  33. Hazel Rose says:

    My goodness. If this all wasn’t so unbelievably shocking it would be laughable. How sad & disturbing that so many people still live in fear based myopia fuelled by petty behaviour & the low words of cowardice.

    Graham — truly thank you and please keep shining your luminous radiant light of awareness for all of us who live outside the limiting psychogenic feedback loop of conformity, control and constraint.

    First they ignore you
    Then they laugh at you
    Then they fight you
    Then you win.

    And to misquote Einstein – ” the measure of intelligence is the ability to accept change ”


  34. Tyrone Ellington says:

    Would you be willing to have a 30 min podcast discussion with me?

    I created this website because of my curiosity for ancient mysteries. I’ve been most interested in ancient civilizations and their gods. With everything I’ve read and researched, I felt I needed a place to share my knowledge and, hopefully, learn from others what they have learned. This is about gathering all the information I can collect and placing it in one central location to continue my research.

    Through this website, I hope to learn from others and their opinions on topics I’ll share. If we all take our pieces of the puzzle and put them together, there is no telling what picture we may see.

  35. Richard James Rodriguez says:

    I have found thoths spaceship and have complete knowledge about enlightenment from years of breath work and receiving gods word as my karma for breathing to show love for life for free I have a website about the meditation and it’s completed maybe tiny punctuation flaws but it is the imperfect imperfection of eternal infinity , I’ll give you a hint the tree of life in the flower of life is the One Somethingness Universal and Planetary Somethingness Home Vehicle and one Mantra to the meditation is .to the one somethingness . That statement has twenty one letters and that’s how many circles make up the FLOW-er of life pattern and the meditation reaches successive statements by mantra and breathing intervals in sets of three , remember how I said the flower of life is made up of 21circles so does this TO THE ONE SOMETHINGNESS UNIVERSAL AND PLANETARY SOMETHINGNESS HOME VEHICLE FOR MY FAMILY AND FRIENDS TO ME THE SOMETHINGNESSIAN HAS TWENTY ONE WORDS I studied the emerald tablets and put a lot of thought toward that direction and believe I have solved all the mysteries of the emerald tablet dang near

  36. Ian says:

    Dear Mr Hancock, Dr David Miano has publicly accepted your invitation to join the Cosmic Summit debate. I think it would be a great debate among two cool-headed speakers. Could you please respond to the emails regarding this?

  37. Eleazar R. says:

    Dear Mr. Hancock, I have watched some of your documentaries and you are very close to the truth but I hear the word “Theory” and until you can say with certainty and authority that what you say is a fact, what you say will continue to be a theory, I can help you reach that goal with irrefutable evidence that can turn theories into facts, after knowing what I can provide there will be clarity about every subject you have documented, including the disappearance of civilizations, Göbekli Tepe, pyramids all over the earth, all the continents, Geological sites known and unknown. just contact me, you will be first, if not you it will be someone else, I am determined to bring this to light.

  38. X says:

    “With this scripted, fact-free smear campaign, this media outlet has declared WAR on journalism”

    Not that anybody subscribes to those, but if you do, and it is pictured above, cancel yours now.

    If they do this to Graham, god help us on the news that matters on a more daily level directly today. That would be even more processed, shopped, twisted, molested, and skewed by the hands behind the scenes, the people the editors hang out with, etc. None of them care about you knowing reality. So fuck em. Unsubscribe now, and encourage everyone you ever meet to do likewise. Erase their memory. Make it a multi-generational project. I’m down.

  39. Drapetomania says:

    Not all archaeologists are scientists..
    Many/most? Universities have the study listed as an arts degree.
    So thats why they often will throw around smears because they are touchy about this..

    1. AJ says:

      I completely agree with you. However, archaeologists collaborate with scientists in many different fields and actively work together to gather and interpret the data they collect. That is why they are credible – they answer the questions they ask and are open to being wrong, unlike this show.

  40. George MacDonald says:

    Clearly a case of academic fraternal snobbery and qualified exclusivity. Clinging rigidly to the relevance of the dusty facts that their empire and funding is built on they are desperate to retain their sense of authority and academic superiority and will go to any length in order to secure and maintain their social status and financial backing, no matter how low they have to stoop to achieve this selfish and ultimately childish goal. For the official archeologist today it seems that “seeking the truth” has transformed into “seeking evidence to support what we proclaimed as truth”, and any arguments to the contrary is treated with aggressive defensiveness and religiously rejected as total heresy. Unfortunately their magic castle is full of cracks and their super snobbery only reveals how their so-called science is no better than a best guess scenario, and is heavily underwritten by inferential sponsorship and a results driven factory of fictions… Perhaps not as clearly cut in stone, this perspective of the archeological community may well just be my opinion, but from an outside observer’s point of view these people look like bullies and they are really exposing themselves and their true colors to the world. Well, the world is watching and most people are no fools. This is obviously an exclusive boys club that reject non-members. Not exactly what I consider a ‘scientific’ approach…

  41. Kayt Mancini says:

    This message brought to you today by CUTTING EDGE SCIENCE: the people who brought you “Clovis First,” “Primitive Neanderthals,” “Disease Killed The Dinosaurs,” and other classic historical favorites!

  42. George J Schiabor says:

    They will never debate you. Their jobs depend on the agenda they promote. They are puppets of the system and will not jeopardize their income. Free thinking individuals loud your efforts. Please continue in the quest for the truth. Thank you

Comments are closed.