Ancient Apocalypse Season 1 Review – Are there lost civilizations out there?

Is there a lost civilization out there?

Ancient Apocalypse is one of those shows that feels like it should be shown on the History channel at 2am, when you wander back home completely drunk from a crazy night out, and throw something on while demolishing a kebab. Not speaking from personal experience of course!

If you don’t fancy turning back to dusty cable again, complete with adverts every 7 minutes, then Netflix have you covered with its latest psuedo-science show, Ancient Apocalypse. Although Graham Hancock (our narrator and host we follow through this show) labels himself more of an investigative journalist, pseudoscience is literally translated to consisting of statements, beliefs or practices that claim to be scientific and factual but don’t actually have methods or facts to back up those claims.

Across the 8 episodes, Hancock and his team jet across the world to various different heritage locations, pointing out and highlighting potential evidence of ancient civilizations that have been around since before our hunter-gatherer ancestors, showcasing ancient civilizations that were here way before them.

While the show is interesting, it’s worth pointing out that it’s highly biased and skewed in one direction. The only mention of scientists or those in the community are in back-handed digs or bad-mouthed retorts, pointing out how scientists don’t know what they’re doing.

It’s actually a shame because Hancock presents some pretty interesting findings but the ripples of mean-spirited ribbing against science doesn’t do his cause any favours. The first episode, for example, looks at Gunung Padang, a site that seems to be evidence of an ancient civilization operating in Indonesia thousands of years ago.

As I said before though, this is a very addictive series and it’s one of those that’s easy to get lost down the rabbit hole, scrambling from mystery to mystery. One episode that’s particularly good for this looks at the Bimini rock formation, that many have pointed to as evidence of the road to Atlantis. This is actually shown off with sonars and equipment to measure the rocks, reinforcing the ideas and really sucking you into the mystery. In fact, I’d argue this is the best episode of the bunch.

However, other chapters go from the compelling to the bonkers with one chapter looking at “Poverty Point” in North America and immediately jumping into believing that the entire site is part of something much bigger, using a lot of “ifs” “maybes” and “I don’t knows” to piece together a civilization fascinated by the sky, and potentially hinting at an apocalyptic climate event.

How much you get out of Ancient Apocalypse depends on what you’re looking for. You won’t get much in the way of balanced viewpoints but tumbling down the rabbit hole and looking deeper at ancient monuments and theorizing that they could be part of something larger is undeniably moreish. This is certainly not a show to take as scientific fact but if you’re looking for more Ancient Aliens and pseudoscience entertainment, this show absolutely has you covered


Feel Free To Check Out More Of Our TV Show Reviews Here!

  • Verdict - 6.5/10
    6.5/10
6.5/10

38 thoughts on “Ancient Apocalypse Season 1 Review – Are there lost civilizations out there?”

  1. I like thought-provoking theories. Theories are meant to put our brains to use.

    I guarantee 100% of the people who are bashing this review injected that RNA-latering myocarditis-inducing Pfizer junk in their veins without a thought.

  2. I found it interesting and thought provoking for sure. As a whole we actually know very little about the distant past and there are numerous unexplainable parts of what we do know. Undeniably there must of been somewhat of an advanced civilisation on earth prior to what is currently accepted to be able to do many of things that even today are incomprehensible about how or why it was done . All doing very similar things is another without any evidence of communication between these areas. I. A person who like to question things that don’t make reasonable sense and investigate how and why’s to come to a sensible conclusion. With much of the planet totally changed from that time as a given of Mother Nature taking back now hidden parts and water covering other parts I think it has only just been touched on the true extent of information we are missing and anyone that tries to offer a theory I’m certainly interested in letting more exploration being done to understand the possibilities .

  3. I watched the entire series, and I think that many people commenting here miss the whole point that was being made: not that there was an advanced civilization somewhere during the ice age, but rather, why that might have disappeared if it had existed — the whole “apocalypse” angle. That alone demands further inquiry because it certainly seems possible, it’s not something that is generally considered, and the implications are staggering. Multiple meteorite strikes over a short period of time from the tail of a shattered comet? Might be a fraction of a chance of that happening, but if it were so the results would be devastating on a planetary scale — as the series points out repeatedly.
    As for the reluctance of archaeologists to entertain (let alone investigate) anything outside of what is accepted as established in their field — well, I can attest to that. I’ve been researching the form of image writing used by the First Nations (Native Peoples) in North America prior to European contact, and I’ve received much the same types of responses that Hancock has seen. My research indicates that the First Nations started developing this system of image writing somewhere around 30,000 years ago; and, all those circular structures they built? Those were for mapping territory using common reference points on any horizon shared between multiple viewing points. They wrote it all down using images (often of animals) incised upon stones (which don’t just eventually go away if they are ignored); so, is it any wonder First Nations members made big, scaled-up images on the ground, (“effigy mounds”) too? You can see some of my research at OriginOfWriting(dot)com and decide for yourself, but, I am definitely inclined to give Hancock the benefit of the doubt.

  4. I like the guy, but he is defidently not rooting his reasearch in science. Already in episode 1, it becomes quite clear that he is intentionally missleading the viewer. After geologists survey the site, they estimate that the natural materials at approxomately 30m into the earth, reaches back almost 20 thousand years. Now, this is not wrong, as is seen around the world, if you dig a hole 30m down in the ground, the material you will find is going to be older and older. So Hancock proclaims the site must be atleast 20 thousand years old aswell. This is a massive miscalculation. If i go into my back yard, and dig 100m down, and then figure out the material i find at the end, is several thousands of years old it would be correct to say that, however; it does not mean the hole is dug many thousand years ago. The site is most definelty not even remotely that ancient, the tunels are dug into the ground, it is not made before the earth rised upp, then waited until the structure was encapsulated thousands of years later, then constructs another room and continued this trend. Making rooms underground is nothing new, people have been doing it since before settlements became a thing. Archeaologists don’t dissagree with him because of how he view history, but because of how he perpousfully don’t consider very simple logical calculations. One of the main issues archaeologists meets when reasearching a site is that people dig new holes into the earth, which forces old dirt ontop of new dirt, so it becomes more difficult to establish exactly when the site was inhabited. This is especially difficult when there is tilted ground, such as mountains and hills like the one we see in ep.1.

  5. I found the series fascinating and I enjoyed the narrative. The human brain is naturally driven to complete puzzles and little is more satisfying than laying the final piece in a jigsaw, especially when you’ve had to search around on the floor for it. Hancock cleverly lays out the parameters of his argument and, in each subsequent episode, seeks to help build the picture he wants to paint. There may be truth in it, there may not but scientific understanding is often driven forward by intuitive leaps. As a fan of Von Daniken in my childhood in the 70s it definitely tickled the nostalgia bone and I was entertained.

  6. Hancock is a joke. It’s tiring hearing him talk about archeolists and scientists dismissing him. If he had the slightest bit of evidence then they may actually listen to him. The poor guy seems to have lost touch on reality and is now paranoid that people with an actual education are out to get him. To me, Hancock seems like a boy that didn’t do so well in school and is now fighting back at those that surpassed him – failing impressively.

  7. lol this so called “review” is the more biased than the show he claims to be biased. only thing this convinced me is whoever wrote this is trapped in a box and don’t like to think outside of it don’t want anyone else to think outside of it either. more you and mainstream archaeologists bash Graham Hancock more people will join with him. and not because of what he says, because of these kind of so called blind biased “reviews” clearly indicates he might be really on to something.

  8. Fascinating. I find his questions very thought provoking. I find some of the evidence he presented as yes. Please peer review that. Dig more here. Some seemed a stretch. But he definitely provided some some good be evidence the smears the face of *the known timeline”

    Isn’t that the very point of science. What a waste if we don’t investigate further.

    I’ve never bought into everything Allen. But they have also asked great questions with crappy conclusions.

    And mainstream archeology does not actually have enough evidence to fend off some of these questions cause they have done the same thing. Looked a few pieces and said oh this is everything!.

  9. No surprise reading this “review” and a lot of the comments. The amount of “no evidence” type comments are fucking incredible. There are peer reviewed and accepted scientific papers, that anyone of your Dunning Kruger victim “readers” could google and read themselves. All backs up the overarching hypothesis of an advanced lost civilisation. He clearly, defines what is opinion, hypothesis and theory. Yet, half the clowns in the comment only seemed to watch the series, to be able to attack the guy. I lol’d at the comment “his theories are just that, theories.” Tell the world you have no idea what scientific theory means. ITS JUST A THEORY! Fuck, so is gravity. Theory is accepted fact. If blind, biased, ego maniacs like Michael Shermer can recant and admit he was wrong to just dismiss these claims. Why aren’t the rest of you NPCs following your dogmatic sceptic (septic) leaders and do the same? I understand thinking for one’s self is hard, but give it a go. Might make you an actual journalist someday. Its clear that its just easier to be a cliched dopamine bean flicking, ego stroking Westerner, than to challenge your cognitive dissonance. The evidence has been growing for 15+ years, the proof is there, its undisputable, and yet…we get this. Can’t wait for the next time we are peppers by meteors. Hoping it wipes continental North America and China, but the world would be so lucky.

  10. Gobekli Tepe alone should be enough to at least warrant a re-examination of the existing orthodoxy.

  11. What Mr Hancock has discovered is a great way to make money in the Age of Charlatans. If you strip the glitz and razzmatazz of the first episode, you will find him SHOWING you a settlement dating from 500 BC but he keeps SAYING that there is a 24000 year settlement there. He is pulling a fast one here folks, listen carefully to what he claims and how he justifies it. True that there was a settlement there, but he has zero proof that someone built “chambers” dozens of meters below, and yet but he puts the word “Chamber” on the printouts: another fast one he just slid in there. His job is to prove that there is a chamber by at least disproving what it can be and having other people also do the scans. Then put the charts up, show the full scans, where they took the readings, how many… not just jump to a CJI tomb structure! did you notice how sloppy all that measuring was. and those core samples were falling apart. If what he says is true, then it is a big discovery, every small town professor will want to put their name to it but no one will because its fake. Scientific progress is slowing down because all the nut jobs are filling the airwaves and we have to deal with them in what now has become a hostile environment. Not conducive to good research. I should also add that Hancock seems like an unpleasant fellow, his constant digs, at almost every sentence, at the Establishment Community is very disheartening. Not only because there is no such thing as mainstream archeology, but because he is resonating the term Mainstream Media (along with the damage that carries). Talking like that makes him sound like he is in defence. mode when he is actually the aggressor. its a trick the ex president played well to great success. In the Age of Charlatans, you just have to look and sound the part, no need to do the hard work, just say the establishment is the problem and the cause of your failures and 50 million losers will agree with you.

  12. The amount of people claiming believing the archeological establishment makes you a sheep, and claiming YouTube videos and unsourced theories are evidence is ridiculous. Nobody’s censoring anything in archeology. The fact of the matter is Netflix are appealing to uneducated people, who don’t know how to conduct research scientifically, and so believe Graham at every word. It’s a fascinating, fun show, but to be able to claim any of it is real you need documentation, plausible explaination, and hard evidence. Alternative theories contradicting Graham have these. Scientists work against each other always – there is no “Establishment” in science. Research the peer review process and you’ll see what I mean. When hundreds of scientists, competing with each other proposing different theories ALL align on one theory, that means we’re pretty darn close to knowing exactly what these artefacts did. Graham doesn’t do this – he doesn’t properly examine, he isn’t peer reviewed, and his findings directly contradict theories that hundreds of scientists who worked individually and have come to the same conclusion have put forward. Linking Dr. Nobody who says x y and a crazy thing is worthless – you need PROOF and PEER REVIEW for a claim to be sonsidered credible. I wish people would learn how to identify verified sources. Not every opinion has equal weight – just because one guy says something does not make his opinion as likely to be correct as another who says something and backs it up eith evidence. All the fools calling people “Sheep” for believing too experts in this field, who have all worked independently and against each other, and come to a conclusion that supports a particular idea – if you call me a sheep for believing what the VAST MAJORITY OF QUALIFIED EVIDENCE STATES, you are nothing more than an ignorant moron who believes controversial theories as an attempt to appear special and enlightened, when you are in fact the opposite. We follow scientific consensus for a reason. In the 1990s scientific consensus told us opioids were dangerous and addictive. The FDA followed a FRINGE SCIENTIST WHO’S BELIEFS WERE UNSUPPORTED, they marketed Oxycontin as “Safe and non addictive”, and now we have an opioid crisis. When you don’t follow scientific consensus bad things happen. This does not mean other theories shouldn’t be put forwards. This does not equate censorship – censorship DOSS NOT HAPPEN in the scientific community. There are supported facts, abd unsupported beliefs. Debunking an unsupported belief DOES NOT equate censorship. And that’s what Grahams’ beliefs are – unsupported. So by all means hear him out and research it – but give cringe theorists and facts supported by evidence equal weight. Some moron posted here that he was a “Wolf” lmfao for listening to unsupported fringe theorists. No, you are a sheep. Only a sheep believes YouTube videos and takes that as hard evidence. Scientific studies that have been peer reviewed are what actual “wolves” consider evidence. Every prediction, conspiracy theory, etc throughout history that is founded on unsupported ideas has failed and been disproven. You are not special for believing something without evidence and going against scientific consensus. Sorry, you might be special, but only in the way that you went to “Special school”.

  13. Another cynical af rating on top of Google. I find this to be highly biased in nature. This should be peer reviewed immediately. Dyor on the overall proof backing the claims. There’s hours upon hours of videos going in depth on this. This must’ve been written by someone with a degree in the field and therefore a wannabe scholar on a study to a point of sheer ignorance and arrogance.

  14. Just watched the first episode. It was fun, interesting and well put together. I will continue watching. They also offered up zero evidence about anything. They did not talk about getting permission to use their equipment on the hill, show their efforts in bringing the equipment up the hill or anything. At best they may have discovered a different timeline. At worst it is completely made up. They “discovered” a void they said. Then they showed some swirly print up and said look, it’s a rectangle. That can only prove it’s a chamber. Get realistic. The shape they showed was a rectangle by a huge stretch. It’s a known volcanic feature. The show never suggests they built the entire hill. So at this point maybe there is an old volcanic tube under there. Or since they did not even attempt to prove they actually found a void maybe there is not even a void. They are claiming an ancient advanced society created something there. An advanced society building a structure out of naturally formed rock? Huh?!? Ok advanced according to what criteria? And then the claim of the core sample. Of course the deeper you core down the timeline will get older not younger. But where’s the proof they actually cored? Why not show that? And after just completely attacking anything to do with science they claim to have used scientific equipment created by, that’s right scientists. And which un-credible scientists did they get to analyse their core samples? Of course they do not tell. Anyways it was a fun watch, looking forward yo the next.

  15. Graham Handcock has been dismissed by many, but not all scientists in their respective fields. There are many pieces of evidence of historical events, even if they’re not from the “lost civilization” he claims. The mythology of civilizations seems to be something overlooked by many, even though that was a major way of distributing information. The information often gets dramatized but there is likely truth in some of the content. The constant connection civilizations have should not be viewed as fact, but as a foundation to do more research on, which Graham is doing. The mat of asteroidal or comet connections is especially intriguing as it has become more and more accepted. His theories are theories because they do not have enough scientific evidence to say for sure what happened. His theories are a way of pushing archeology forward to look at new ideas. I do not believe when he says “this may require a re-writing of history,” he means overnight. I think he means as we find more information it could lead to that. However, if we dismiss the possibilities of the contents of the structures he shows we will never know for sure the answer to our early history that is hidden beneath our feet, whether it be rubble, under the ocean or hidden or even sites we know of today.

  16. Ha you’re just mad and egos can’t admit when wrong. Sheep only follow what taught. Wolves use common sense and educate themselves. It’s so sad how ppl try to attack anyone with opposing but very valid points

  17. I assume due to time constraints and a desire to keep it interesting for an audience that isn’t familiar with archeology, Graham didn’t flesh out all of his findings and all of the added proof but if you delve even a little into his work (He has written many books and appeared on many podcasts where he goes far deeper then he does in the show) then you will see he has spent decades researching this topic and hasn’t come to any conclusion lightly.

  18. Well done Graham Hancock, finally recognition of decades of work.
    Archeology needs to get there heads out of the sand and stop being so cynical with your own self importance, stop censorship of alternative theories, theories that actually make sense to lay people.

  19. While I tend to lean towards established science, this series does present a few interesting questions.

    It is based one person’s unproven and unpopular hypothesis. Only further exploration can disprove or prove that hypothesis.

    Have to remember that Darwin was labelled a heretic at one point

  20. I have read many books by eminent egyptologists and archeologists, watched many documentaries on archeology and ancient history, (and have also read Fingerprints of the Gods (have you?), which by the way has 58 pages of bibliography and references – and also three other books by Hancock, and Robert Bauval’s book The Orion Mystery) – so I am not someone who has just watched these 8 Netflix episodes. Hancock has spent decades challenging the ‘official’ view of history, and this series raises many very interesting and compelling theories and anomalies about ancient structures, which take into account mythology, astronomy, geology, and utilise modern investigative technology. It’s all very well to rubbish it, citing ‘lack of peer review’! But surely enough fascinating questions have been raised through Graham Hancock’s research that any mainstream archeologist with a genuine interest in their subject and a knowledge of ancient civilisations would surely want to find out more, instead of just disregarding other ideas because of a perception of lack of peer review? Graham Hancock’s research involves people who, yes, are actually archeologists, and other scientists – geologists, archeo-astronomers etc., all of whom must be feeling very insulted by some of these comments. The mainstream archeologists and historians, who seem to think they own the truth, should surely show some interest in investigating these other possibilities? Much of their own knowledge is based on theories, not all of which have been properly peer reviewed, and those that have probably only involved other archeologists. Many ideas that Zawi Hawass in Egypt has come up with about the Giza pyramids and sphynx are just taken to be fact because he said it, never reviewed, they are his own theories. The history that is currently available about the ancient structures explored in this series has not been ‘peer reviewed’ either!! There’s never been any input from other scientific disciplines that can contribute so positively to further research. The lack of any interest by mainstream archeologists to investigate these new ideas gives people the impression that they are indeed just protecting their status, their careers, their education, their credibility. To be more proactive about it would be far more honorable and gain respect.
    I didn’t like the dramatic music that accompanied the series, too sensational, detracted from the historical information – it’s so unnecessary, just cheapens the content. I’d have preferred it without any music at all!

  21. Tediously dumb review. Why not have a look at the work of Dr Natawidjaja’s on Gunung Padang and the other academics Mr Hancock speaks with before labelling it all psuedo science.

  22. I watched the complete series. What strikes me is the sheer contempt for genuine scientists and archeologists by Hancock. He offers not one single shred of evidence for his wild ideas and silly theories. He asks a lot of questions, makes all kinds of assumptions, poses what if’s and maybe’s. His sole purpose is to sell books to the gullible and travel the world, which seems to be working fine for him. Obviously, a lot remains to be discovered about the origins of mankind and ancient civilisations, but the answers based on rock solid proof will not come from Hancock. We find many thousands artifacts, dating from millions to thousands of years BC. Never has one single tool or artifact been found that could be connected and dated to an ancient advanced lost civilisation. Hancock, ‘the journalist’ is a joke.

  23. I’m enjoying the show. Keep an open mind, folks.
    Our ancient Indian scriptures do talk of aviation, like Ravan’s Pushpak Viman. Rock paintings do depict UFO’s. Kailash temple cut top to bottom from a single stone in Ajanta-Ellora is an incredible feat.
    But the white man is unable to digest the fact that Indians could have been far superior to them. They keep harping about Aryan Invasion theory & how horses were brought from Europe when latest evidence has disproved that theory.
    Watch it. I’m hooked.

  24. Good review – I’ve only watched one episode so far, but I’ve been a fan of the ancient lost civilizations genre since I was a teenager. In the first episode, Hancock does a good job of showing us an interesting site in Indonesia which is a genuine mystery and should be investigated further, but leaves without doing so, choosing to rather say science can’t accept these findings. Ultimately his extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, but he doesn’t want to defend his theories and instead is off to the next mystery. I delight in the mysteries and the ‘what ifs’ but I’m disappointed he didn’t even consult one expert, even a fringe one if a mainstream expert was unwilling.

  25. Currently watching this and it blows my mind that people will watch this and not ask further questions to what Hancock is saying. He points to stones that built a site and says they must have been cut, but then goes on to say they form that way naturally. Okay, so which is it? Put on camera the proof of human activity on that rock other than it’s placement.
    I do not appreciate his adversarial attitude towards archeologists as if they are hiding something. I know archeologists, I’m studying to become one, and they are the most humble people I know. They will happily say “we found this evidence of human activity. This is all we have learned and we still don’t know why they did it”. They are okay saying “we don’t know but we will keep looking”.
    He talks as if archeology has been around for hundreds of years when it’s an actually fairly new discipline and is still evolving every year.
    Apart from that, he also doesn’t seem to look to indigenous groups to gain answers. He looks for other pseudo-scientists to support his wild claims. Modern day archeologists are working with indigenous communities to answers questions of our past. Especially in colonized countries where these are not our ancestors (non European) the answers can come from indigenous stories. They are mentioned but not featured in this show and that says a lot as well.

    All in all, so far, Hancock has some good questions but is too adversarial and too Eurocentric in his views to provide anything of real value to the audience. It’s just an intriguing show that captures the interests of others who don’t understand basic scientific methods

  26. I suspect the only reason this entertainumentary made it to Netflix is because the theory-pusher’s son, Sean Hancock, happens to be the head of “unscripted originals” at Netflix. Disappointing.

  27. You can join that group of synics dear reviewer, that are stuck in the current narcissistic way of thinking. Catch a wake up to the fact that its thinkers like Graham that are going to catapult the rest of us into a new world where we stop being so gullable and start questioning our past and future existence. Thank God for this platforn where our intelligences can be challenged and we can encourage society to take heed of the messages our ancestors so painstakingly etched for us in these beautiful wonders.

  28. Wow…. Did you actually watch the show or are you just reading what others have reported? Love how ppl don’t want information and will discredit actual scientists trying to give us information we don’t have access to and challenges the mainstream. No nobody has all the answers that’s why we need shows like this to give the scientists and researchers actually doing the work a voice that ppl can actually hear.

  29. I think Graham takes great leaps ahead of the evidence with his grand narrative hypothesis. However so does mainstream archeology with their hunter gatherer narrative for 150,000 years and all of a sudden mass structures throughout the world. We don’t know what we don’t know, Graham and mainstream both make huge leaps outside of the evidence or lack of evidence. However Graham raises a lot of unexplained interesting ideas and pieces of evidence that should be explored further but seems to be not because of some unsaid ridicule and loss of reputation from mainstream science for even exploring or pushing against some widely held beliefs no matter the evidence. The same thing that happened with UAP they may be nothing but to just dismiss without any investigation is a ridiculousness and we see where we are with that now, people scrambling to investigate once the nod of acceptance was given.

  30. Poor review Greg. There are many facts that science can’t explain. Graham is just trying to look at the past and give his angle on it.

  31. Are the comments here a bit?

    The read like conspiracy whack jobs, seems a bit on the nose…

  32. I am all in favour of challenging scientific ideas with new theories, after all this is part of the scientific process. However, if Hancock is to challenge historical ideas that are already widely accepted by the scientific community, he must obtain hard and persuasive evidence to support his ideas. This is where he is lacking. In the first episode in Indonesia, he meets with an archaeologist who claims to have found samples that suggest a 24000 year old settlement hidden beneath a 2400 year old settlement. These “samples” were not explained by Hancock, leaving us in the dark and again, with no hard evidence. This is the same story repeated over and over again in each episode (an interesting site, a hypothesis, no evidence). This could have been a really interesting series if it Hancock was able to provide even some convincing data. I would encourage some viewers to watch this with caution, as those who are less educated will likely find themselves seeing undeniable facts and proof that point towards an ancient lost civilization much like Hancock does. If you question his work, you’ll end up with many questions and next to no answers.

  33. Coffee Book table talk. No mention of the Australian Aborigines whose culture is the oldest. Dates back at least 40000 years. Where were the giants and the so called learned men from the sea. There was no grain crops nor domestic animals.
    I guess the so called comets missed these people as well as the great flood. Where are the so called great civilizations now – they are gone and yet the Aboriginal culture remains. Secret knowledge I guess.

  34. I don’t like your review , mainstream big money science speak . Don’t stray or you’ll lose your funding.

  35. Ancient Apocalypse hosted by Graham Hancock, an investigative reporter, is reporting a need to reevaluate our current scientific hypotheses. That is how science works. Actual scientists using scientific methods to evaluate our world and unearth the truth of our collective past. These scientists have finds that challenge our current hypothesis. There is nothing pseudo about it! They have structures with 23,000 year old dates of human habitation in cities. That flies in the face of our current scientific hypotheses. Sadly, the only pseudo thing is your reporting. Sincerely Alicia

  36. “Pseudo science” jesus man, all of the same. Instead of trying to understand what a man says you’re copy-pasting what nay-sayers do – labeling without even looking at the evidence

  37. Your review clearly makes you establishment led , it’s time ! This is not the truth is out there x files stuff , it’s clearly obvious from the immense amount of very very ancient monolithic stoneworking much of it so complicated scientists can’t explain how it was made . Obvious that Hancock and others (loyd pye, velekofsky worlds in collision) velikovsky wrote first In 1950 and his book was banned by Russia , yet he was a freind of Einstein’s. We have been programmed not to belief other than our early teachings of human history… It’s fact upon fact really , the information and proof is compelling….

Leave a comment