00:00.33 archpodnet Hello and welcome to the pseudo archeology podcast episode 105 I am your host Dr Andrew Kingkella and tonight on a special edition of the pseudo archeology podcast andrew kingkella reviews ancient. Apocalypse with the narrator Graham don't call me a pseudo Archeologist Hancock 00:32.88 archpodnet Here wait actually I'm going to do that again and just so everyone knows this is recording 5 right? So this is note to the editor recording number 5 I am not using recordings 1 through 4 and we are starting here with recording five because. Found out some new things just on my own Youtube channel and I had to kind of change things around to make it all make sense. So I'm going to do the intro again and here we go. 01:08.72 archpodnet Welcome to the pseudo archeology podcast episode 105 and tonight on a special edition of the pseudo dammit I screwed it up this is this is rare for me because I'm usually really awesome. Here wait I can do this and then we'll get rolling. 01:35.23 archpodnet Hello and welcome to the pseudo archeology podcast episode 105 I am your host Dr Andrew Kingkella and tonight on a special edition of the pseudo archeology podcast I review ancient. Apocalypse and its host Graham don't call me a pseudo archeologist hancock so here we are debasing ourselves. With ancient apocalypse. How far we have fallen on this show my friends but we got to do this one. Ah this one's getting a lot attraction and man it's keeping me employed in this podcast where I'm guessing the next six months or so. So. What what is this? Why do we care about graham hancock's ancient apocalypse. Ok well, it's a netflix show that just came out again. We're we're recording this in late november early december twenty twenty two and it's 8 episodes long each episode is about 30 minutes each it is the number 1 show on netflix so love it or hate it. It's really popular and the show is oh listeners. It is a. 03:07.28 archpodnet Classic smorgasborg of the best of the best and by best I mean worst that pseudo archeology has to offer. There is an overarching story in it. Basically. Graham Hancock is there to tell you that there was a super civilization that used to exist before the ice age right much more technologically advanced than anything that we can imagine and at the end of the ice age it fell apart through some sort of. Catastrophe. So at around 13000 years something horrific happened obliterating this great civilization from earth and leaving only bits and pieces of it that all current civilizations sprung from. Right? All civilizations as we know it sprung from the leftover tendrils of this long vanquished super civilization now. It sounds kind of fun to watch you know and let's face it. It is a bit fun to watch but it's. Totally fake. It's like bursting with fraud. It's just so wrong that the shorter list is really the true parts to it I mean you know on a scale of 1 to 10 it ranks as. 04:36.70 archpodnet Abysmal. So why the big whoop you know again, it's getting a lot of traction. A lot of stuff in the news about it. You know why? you would think it's just the same old ancient aliens crap like who cares all right? we care because so many people are taking this seriously. Now Graham Hancock has been doing this stuff for years for decades right? This guy's been doing this stuff since the early 90 s at least I think he was probably doing this stuff in the eighty s he's one of the darlings of Joe Rogan you will see him more recently obviously on Joe Rogan's podcast but he's. Ah, published a bunch of his lame books that he's done for for decades now. Ah fingerprints of the gods actually wait, let me say that correctly fingerprints of the gods which is probably his most well-known one. And they're all the same I mean those of us who have a secret love for pseudo archeology. It's the same old stories. You heard a hundred times man you know, just repackage what's hilarious is there's. Certain pseudo archeology examples that I've already covered on this podcast that Graham Ham Hancock goes over a new you know as if it's a startling new revelation. It's just old. You know like I mean. 06:06.46 archpodnet Man you guys who are into this stuff if you watch ancient apocalypse. There will be certain segments where you will audibly go boo and have to throw something at the screen because it's you heard this all before. But again. You know it seems like it wouldn't be that big of a deal. It's like okay, just another you know another? Ah Graham Hancock production whatever who cares? Well, it's kind of up to a new level now because Graham Hancock is like. Actively bashing archeologists now he always did this is part of his scam. So let's look at his scam his scam the way he does this is you can actually watch the first 30 seconds of the first show of ancient apocalypse and get the scam. In the first thirty seconds there's a bunch of quick clips where you see Graham Hancock again and again talking about how archaeologists hate him about how he's enemy number one and ah he talks about archeologists as. So called experts right? We're so-called experts and he says of archeology you know and of archeologists that we are quote defensive arrogant patronizing you know people who you want to bring home to mom. 07:40.29 archpodnet So it's over the top right? and then he very quickly distances himself. He says you know I'm not an archaeologist right? So he can use that dichotomy right? He can be like it's us versus them and if you're watching the show you want to be with Graham so you're the us and them. Is the narrow minded close minded archeologists who are out to get him now. The reality is we don't give a damn about Graham Hancock when I was finishing my dissertation I wasn't like well I'm almost finished but what would Graham Hancock say right. We don't care and and we're just as tired of it as any older listeners of Graham Hancock because we have just heard it all before but there is a method to his madness right? because with this false equivalency he he creates right us versus us versus them. Some sort of fifty fifty environment it gives his dopey ideas fake weight right? As if they're equal somehow to ours as if there's some sort of back and forth in this scam. But of course there's not. We're 100% right? and he's 0% right? It's not fifty fifty it's not sixty forty it's one hundred zero but the argument works really? Well you might have seen this argument if you're a fan of psychology. It's like a narcissistic argument. So I'm not saying Graham Hancock is a narcissist or not but the. 09:15.50 archpodnet Argument is not narcissistic. So how you do this is you basically? Ah, if I'm Graham Hancock I attack the archaeologists right? I attack them a bunch of times. The first thirty seconds of this show does the whole thing you attack attack attack attack attack and then. When the archeologists defend Graham Hancock flips the script and go how's how dare you attack me, you know as soon as you respond see how that works right? You're not the aggressor the archeologist is not the aggressor again we don't care. But Graham Hancock sets the stage by saying things like oh they hate me? no, but he needs that to make the false equivalency work right? That's the scam and it totally works. You know you guys. Ah as i've. Been dealing with this ancient apocalypse stuff and I'll talk more later about how I have personally been dealing with a lot of this It reminds me so much of the creationism debates that I used to have to deal with I have to say like. Maybe ten years ago maybe 15 at this point I used to have to deal with the creation is the creationist debate thing all the time and then it kind of went away and I think that. 10:44.50 archpodnet The Graham Hancock thing is kind of a repackaging of some of the creationist stuff now what is the creationism debate. This is the um reading of the bible where you read it literally and you say that the earth is 6000 years old right the earth was created by god and it's 6000 years old and of course that's ludicrous but creationists do that same scam where they go what you won't debate us. It's you know, making this fifty fifty world well it could be that the earth is four point six billion years old or it could be that the earth is 6000 years old and you're just not looking at the evidence close minded archeologists see what I'm saying. It's the same crap. It's the same ball game man and we do hear. That Graham Hancock wants to debate or should debate an archeologist would I do it? Hell yeah but I don't think it would come out very well and. The reason why I think that is if you look back to some of the creationist stuff if you look back to the debates they had like there was this creationist named Ken Ham he's an australian creationist some of you guys might have might have heard of this guy before or can remember him by the australian accent he debated Bill Nye the science guy 12:17.21 archpodnet And it wasn't that fun. You know because it's it's intrinsically stupid. So what you really get is the 2 camps just maintaining their 2 camps. Nobody's mind gets changed. You know nothing changes. It's just a show for show's sake. So don't think that some magical debate with Graham Hancock and archeologist a will do anything you know it just won't. So that just leaves people like me to defend archeology from this kind of stuff right? And again, you can still think well why would you really care. It's because the general public is being so misled by this stuff and. They're being totally taken advantage of because the general public is really interested in this stuff right? it's interesting you know I think it's interesting you think it's interesting Graham Hancock thinks is interesting but the general public gets fed this just lame b s. Story that he's been hawking for 30 years you know and the other thing that I really don't like that I think in a way is almost worse than all the pseudo archeology crap that Graham Hancock does because honestly huge portions of ancient apocalypse if you watch it. You'll see right through it. 13:50.80 archpodnet Like there's a fun factor in just watching that you know because it's just so lame. So that aspect of it again. I don't think that is as ruinous to the general public as the anti intellectualctualism vibe that goes underneath this right? The idea that. Mainstream academics are not to be trusted right? They are narrow minded. They what did they know because they're just carbon copies of those who came before and they won't just open their eyes to the quote unquote. Evidence right? and I've really seen this wave of anti intellectualctualism in archeology specifically take off with this show and just take flight and that's the worst part when we come back. Some examples of pseudo archeology to the max in Graham I'm a total pseudo Archeologist Hancock's ancient. Apocalypse.