Graham Hancock takes a lot of flak for what he's doing. In "Ancient Apocalypse" he often addresses this criticism and convincingly debunks it. While watching it, I was wondering when all his so-called outlandish claims would appear. There is no pseudo-science here. Nothing he says it out of this world. Instead, he challenges the current paradigm. Sometimes he straight up proves that current and seemingly indisputable beliefs are wrong.

I think his primary mistake was calling the series "Ancient Apocalypse" and having someone like Joe Rogan appear from time to time.

Every day, we discover new things. This includes things that raise questions about our past. When it comes to history, it appears that the absolute truth and knowledge has been irrefutably established by the scientific community a long time ago. Why would it be like that? There are megaliths and structures that do not fit into the current narrative. Why would we be so arrogant and think that we already know everything? We have been wrong too many times.

Ancient Apocalypse is very well made. I've been interested in history, archeology, and ancient civilizations as long as I can remember. I'm also not afraid to admit to love Erich von Däniken's books, another controversial figure who raises similar questions. History is exciting because we don't know everything yet. And it's definitely not out of this world, that maybe, just maybe we are completely wrong about some things.