I have 2 more episodes to go and I've been watching it with my kids. I've truly enjoyed it, even though I don't quite believe it.

To those that are interested, basically Hancock visits sites around the world that seem to show that humans had the technology to build megaliths much earlier than previously thought. Currently accepted archeology believes that human civilizations start around 6000 years ago, but some structures like Gobeki Tepe suggest that this actually happened much, much earlier, closer to 12,000 years ago. Hancock goes to various sites around the world and tries to build the case that if the technology to build these megalithic structures existed earlier than previously thought, then how is that possible? He then links ancient myths of great floods, and then links that to the Dryer Younger Impact theory, which is that around 12,000 years ago the Earth passed through a comet trail that cause catalysmic events and basically ended the Ice Age. He suggests that the civilizations that lived pre-cataclysm were able to pass technology onto human civilizations afterwards and then they died off or disappeared.

I don't necessarily believe it, but it's a fun story to listen to, and after 3 years of COVID I'm desperate for stories that are intellectual, creative and new to my brain.

However the article above is pretty poorly written. As far as I've seen, he has not once declared things as "fact".

> Rather than presenting evidence of Atlantis from its existence, Hancock seeks to amend the legacies of existing ancient sites like the columns atop Gunung Padang in Indonesia, attributing them to advanced Atlanteans who survived their society’s purported destruction by comet.

I never once heard him mention that Atlanteans built Gunung Padang, but rather that civilizations earlier than believed had the technology to build large structures like pyramids.

> “Ancient Apocalypse,” however, crosses a line by claiming its hunches as fact.

This has never happened, as far as I can tell from watching. He is always suggesting, and building a case, but he never declares things as facts unless they have been agreed upon. For example, Gobeki Tepi was measured as 12,000 years old by German archeologists, not by himself.

I'm not an archeologist but everything he predicted the archeology community would do to him, they are trying to do. They are vilifying him for simply bringing up an alternative explanation. If they were better, they would just present their evidence but instead they attack him, try to ridicule his ideas, etc, and only make him look better. I don't understand why they have such a strong, predictable reaction to Hancock, but it definitely seems unwarranted. I would love to watch someone dispute the claims besides "This guy is stupid" or "Where is the evidence of this civilization?" I think he showed some pretty decent evidence to me, as an objective and open-minded viewer.

I watched a Youtube Q&A between Hancock and Hawass, and Hawass was so rude and arrogant, it wasn't even close. He just extremely rudely dismissed the question about Gobeki Tepe from an audience member. I haven't seen anything else useful but would love to see a real honest debate. My guess is no one is confident enough they can debate Hancock though, because he builds a pretty good case for his theory.