Any ice-age telepaths out there? Please explain why Netflix is revisiting Ancient Apocalypse
Any ice-age telepaths out there? Please explain why Netflix is revisiting Ancient Apocalypse
A catastrophe is indeed looming in letting Graham Hancock return with his oddball theories, now with Keanu Reeves in tow
Diary note: it may seem a while off, but the end of the world is still scheduled for 2030, precise date TBC. After once suggesting that nameless devastation could be upon us in 2012, the evergreen eschatologist Graham Hancock subsequently updated his advice to a comet, now six years off. Or thereabouts. MailOnline, which has been exhuming an ancient Hancock text, reminds readers of his “dire warning for our age”.
What is certain, anyway, is that a great and horrifying catastrophe will occur as soon as 16 October. This is the day Netflix will launch something astounding, almost beyond belief, something sceptics said could never happen: series 2 of Hancock’s Ancient Apocalypse. And stranger still: this terrible event stars, along with Hancock, the Hollywood actor Keanu Reeves.
I don't understand why people get so bent out of shape about this series in particular. These pseudo documentaries have been around forever, and I don't remember so much animosity. Just have fun. Nobody hated on Nimoy for In Search Of.
Nobody hated on Nimoy for In Search Of.
That show opened with a firm disclaimer that it was all speculative.
Hancock does say his ideas aren't mainstream, but it's framed more like a conspiracy by academics to hide the truth.
I agree with you in general that you can have light entertainment shows about "unsolved mysteries" without falling into the trap of peddling pseudoscience.
Because it is a step down the pseudoscience pipeline that gets you to not trust scientists (Hancock's whole thing is that elitist archaeologists won't accept his ideas) and that leads to things like vaccine denial.
It is dangerous.
He definitely does highlight the fact that his ideas aren't accepted in academia and he's right. Academia requires evidence and Hancock is long on theory but comes up short on evidence.
I think he does bring a lot of imagination and wonder to what can often be a dull subject matter, and even if it's all bullshit I see value in that.