Hi, and welcome to Digging Up Ancient Aliens.

This is the podcast where we currently

investigating Netflix series Ancient Apocalypse.

Do the claims hold water to an archaeologist or the better explanations out there.

I'm your host, Fredrik, and this is part two of the ancient Apocalypse saga.

And this time we will look into more of the monuments

and different locations that Graham Hancock bring up in his Netflix series.

Last time we focused more on his background, origin and influences,

but this time we will get more into the archeological remains

or places and sites that he brings up throughout the series.

And this time we will focus on three locations.

It is Gunung Padang the pyramid of Cholula

and the Temples on Malta

and a couple of different things too.

We are also joined by Dr.

Bill Farley, who has been guests of those in the past

and also Kayleigh from history with Kayleigh.

I also want to thank @majoraZ from Twitter who shared

their research on Cholula pyramid and some myths about the site.

Their research, helped me quite a lot in here.

And remember that you find sources, resources, and further reading suggestions

on our website too.

digging up ancient aliens dot com.

They also find my contact info if you spot any mistakes or have any suggestions

and you also find a fully referenced transcript there for this episode

and basically all the others too we have done in the past.

And if you like the podcast or this video, you should like, subscribe

and give us a five star review wherever you listen on the podcast.

Even if you don't listen on podcasts, just go to any podcast player,

give us five stars.

That helps tremendously in the algorithms.

Now, when we were finished with our preparations, let's dig into the episode

Let's start where Hancock start

the show. We are going to Gunung Padang and this site is located in West Java

and that's some three and a half hours from the central city of Jakarta.

Hancock claims that this site is a mystery that has to be solved.

A puzzle indeed we have, but not for the reasons

Graham Hancock might have intended.

Now there's a rich tradition of legends in the Malay

archipelago, as in many other cases around the globe.

Of course there are legends about this sites in particular going on in Gunung

Padang, for example.

The Sudanese people tell stories about King Siliwangi,

who tried to build a palace there during one night.

And while Hancock usually sees things

from a mythical lens, we don't see it that much in this episode.

Or do we?

His primary theory in this segment is that there once was a vast

and powerful civilization before the deluge named Sundaland.

Now, did he come up with this theory by himself?

Well, as we learned in the first part, Hancock has been heavily

inspired by Theosophical writings.

So is it a big surprise that theosophist C.W.

Leadbeater wrote in his book, The Occult History Of Java

that Java was part of an Atlantean colony

that was attached to the Asian mainland.

And just because an idea is presented in

an esoteric book, it doesn't mean that it's necessarily wrong.

So let's see what Hancock

has to claim about the site and what his evidence really is.

There are three claims in the show that we will look into here

that the Gunung Padang is a pyramid,

that it's human-made and the C-14 dating show

that the site's construction could be as old as 9000 B.C.E

or maybe even 20,000 B.C.E

Let's start with the first idea that Gunung Padang is a human-made pyramid

and since it was rediscovered in 1979,

excavation has taken place basically, ever since.

A couple of hypotheses has been tested

and since no grave has been discovered within the complex, it's

usually agreed today that this site is a punden

berundak, that this would make sense since this type of structure is found

across the West Java pond and the punden berundak is a megalithic structure

whose name translates to basically glorified person.

And these structures are similar to a step pyramid in the sense that they are

a pyramid formed and have different platforms

going up, but they are used as a part of ancestral worship.

And this tradition was most active with the megalithic sites during the paleo

metallic era and sometimes referred to as the Indo-Malayan Bronze-Iron Age.

And this period is usually set to be around 500 B.C.E to 500 A.D.

So Gunung Padang is one of many structures

with this shape within the area, but the largest due

to the incorporation of the 885 meter tall natural hill.

You also have the Lebak Sibedug, Arca Domas, Bukit Kasur

and many more megalithic structures in the same type of tradition.

We also see a connection in later Samoan tradition of mound building

that takes place around 1100 C.E.

And before we go any further, I want to make something clear here

and you will understand this a bit more as we go on through the episode. The

punden berundak

theory is entangled with a sort of regional

nationalism and a sense of regional superiority.

Now the manufactured part is on top of the hill.

We find there five enclosures where, archaeologists

would agree that we see artificial structures.

But the rest of the hill is a natural phenomenon since it's a base of a volcano.

So the columnar joints

we see throughout the episode would not have needed to be brought in.

Hancocks makes a point that columnar joints are normally vertical, all

while there are many examples where columnar joints are vertical, though.

For example, at the Devil's Causeway, you will notice that quite clear there.

But there are of course, other examples where there are not vertical.

The cracks that create the columns appear where the lava flow cool.

And we see this, for example, in the supposed retainer wall

that he presented in the show and what Hancock and Dr.

Hillman refer to as mortar is, according to vulcanologists,

traces of natural weathering,

and that the site is based on the volcano would explain the cave. Dr.

Hillman claims are in the center of the hill.

And from all the evidence we have, it looks to be a natural lava tunnel.

So we can partially agree with Hankook here that the site is artificial,

but it's not a pyramid and has never been intended to be a pyramid in that sense.

The constructors also used local available stones on the hill

to construct the punden berundak. So that we don't know the function

or refuse to accept this is manufacturerd a rather strange claim from Hancock

to be honest. But note that this hill is an ancient volcano,

and the stones we see here are found within the neck of the volcanoes

and that the site is part of here. And now for the dating of this site.

And of course things take a bit of a darker turn here.

Much of the episode is spent with the geologist.

Dr Danny Hilman Natawidjaja.

He was together with the lead archeologist Ali Akbar,

responsible for an excavation that took place

between 2011 and 2014.

Both appear throughout the episode as experts on the site, but

this excavation has not been

without its fair share of criticism.

And to understand the C-14 Dating and the context they where taken in.

We need to look closely at how they excavated the sites.

I first want to pause and reflect and

we should note that archeology

can and often are used for political gain.

First, Indonesia is a post-colonial state. While

the first president, Sukarno, was trying to build a nation

based on economic freedom from the West, empires from their pre-colonial

past was used to strengthen the legacy of his regime.

That archaeology has been to support nationalistic ideas

is far from new, and neither is sponsoring a pseudo-

archaeological claims to boost your national image.

We saw this, for example, in Bosnia, with Semir Osmanagic,

pyramids in Visoko. And we have another connection.

We see how funds from the state is used to support one of these

fringe ideas, both in Bosnia and here in Indonesia.

So the research team at the Gunung Padang received

3 billion rupiahs in the initial funding.

Now it sounds like a lot, but is not so much when we convert this to US dollars.

But compare this 3 billion to the 4.6 billion rupiah, Bandung

Archaeological Center gets to cover their research and salary

for a whole year, and this is supposed to, well include the salaries,

projects, excavations, conservation and everything else.

And the research team at the Gunung Padang

got 3 billion for the first year, basically,

and there's no secret that the excavation of Gunung Padang was ordered by the

then sitting president Susilo Bambang

Yudhoyono. As Sulistyowati and Foe wrote, the Yudhoyono administration

utilized symbols and landmarks to try and bolster the national identity.

Yudhoyono wanted a symbol that could be used and considered to be older

and bigger than other famous monuments like the Pyramids of Giza.

And we see different nationalistic activities

take place throughout excavations.

They have flag raisings, they have salutes, they have high ranking official.

Now, they even named part of the excavation “operation

to honor red and white”.

But even if an excavation has a political agenda,

they could still theoretically do good research.

So is it the case here and the more we look at it,

the more it becomes clear that this was not the case.

Unfortunately, they went for a rather destructive excavation

with a lack of general oversight, and methodology.

Samples were taken and analyzed without motivating their revelations or context.

And there are cases of recent items, some more modern items,

contaminating the excavation.

For example, a coin that turned out to be from the mid 1900s

was dated by the excavation team to be from a layer or within a layer

that they had dated to 5200 B.C.E.

And the find was not even in situ in the first place.

And there was never any good reason

for placing the item in that layer even.

And they didn't even talk to others archaeologists

to see if their theory was correct. Or numismatics,

The people who studied coins. But decided that this was an ancient amulet

and evidence of this ancient culture that they were trying to find on the site.

And there are more reports of items not found in situ,

but would rather just appear among the excavation teams.

And this isn't really too surprising if you have in mind

that they had up to 500 volunteers.

None of them really had the experience with archeology

or it is unknown their level of experience.

As for the C-14 dating, we have a similar pattern of mistakes.

So, for example, two core drillings, but we're only sure where Dr.

Hillman have taken one of these, creating a bit of a context issue here for us.

And the dates look strange when we look at these two, for example, we see older dates

that's mixed with the younger dates within the core. And the 2000 B.C.E

or the 20,000 B.C.E

The date that's thrown around within the show. Is from

the drill core number two at a depth of seven meters.

And we get then later a calibrated date

on 11,600 B.C.

at only eight meters.

And this sequence in the core closing out on yet another 20,000 B.C.

date.

Now, I like to note that these extreme dates

are sometimes within the core, separated by a couple of centimeters.

While it's plausible, it's highly peculiar, to say the least.

It's not really something we would expect to see, especially

with these long time ranges

within the core. Hillman isn't really noting this in the documentation

that we have access from within his archeological digs.

And as we previously mentioned in another episode,

the core drillings are sensitive to contaminations.

Furthermore, the research just doesn't seem to know what they are testing.

Context is everything within archeology.

We need to know what we're testing and within what context.

But the team is just noting that this is organic matter that they have

for some reason, decided is from the construction of the site.

But without giving us any deeper explanation for it.

But since Hillman and Ali Akbar's team has rounded

the quality control, that is peer review,

the data we have is quite scarce from the excavation unfortunately.

And they have systematically only spoken with the media about this

like the news or papers or blogs,

you know, the popular media, so to say, instead of publishing it to journals.

Add to this a lack of attention to stratigraphy,

insufficient documentation when the removing columnar

joints and general site destruction. We have part of the site

now have been rendered rather useless for future scientists.

And this is an excellent example of what happens when you're doing

an excavation for the wrong reasons.

Dr. Hillman went to the site to find his Indonesian

Atlantis, and the regime paid Hillman

to find a national monument that would rival the Pyramids of Giza.

And it becomes pretty evident.

Read the Hillmans book. “Plato never lied

Atlantis in Indonesia” from 2013 that he was out to prove his idea

all along. No matter the cost, basically, and evidence that might disprove

his hypothesis has been left out or explained away.

So I find it almost a little bit unseemly when Hancock uses these dates

without this context to prove his hypothesis. In the episode,

they never mention the excavations or the obscene

amount of money they got to create them.

Instead, he go for this idea that the discovery is getting silenced

when they don't really share their discoveries with others.

But this approach, of course, fits Hancock well because he can

then claim that archeologists refuse to look at the evidence,

even though the evidence wasn't really shared with us from the start.

And before we go to the next part, I want to welcome back

our next guest.

So I want to welcome Dr.

Bill Farley, who has been a guest previously and welcome back.

Yeah, thank you for having me again.

I was on the show previously when we were just making fun of an episode

of of Ancient Aliens listening fun to talk about some different stuff today.

So I'm excited to be back. Thanks for having me.

So you're an American archeologist,

so you're part of the conspiracy, according to Hancock?

Yeah.

So I guess we get that a bit nuanced part here.

But since you were watching Ancient Aliens with us before,

would you maybe want to share some differences, you

noticed, between ancient apocalypse and ancient aliens?

Yeah, I it's there's some interesting similarities and differences, I think.

I think, you know, I'm sure as you've noticed,

you know, there are a lot of similarities.

It borrows a lot of the same visual language, which is to say

just sort of basic documentary style,

which which I think is meant to lend it credibility in the same way.

But I think a big distinction,

important distinction between the two is that ancient aliens is more

overt in its in its

reaching out to, let's say, conspiracy theorists, right.

It knows what it is and it's not pretending really to

at least it's not pretending in overt ways.

It subtly pretends to be something it's

not with its use of visual language and filmic language to try it.

And the way it uses the language of documentarians to

to lend itself credibility.

But I think ancient apocalypse, maybe because it's on Netflix

or maybe because of Hancock and his his particular approach to this

that goes back decades in his writings, much more

tries to play a careful game with how it presents

its it's evidence it's things that are not backed

don't say things that are not backed up by evidence like Hancock will

sort of quite cagily say you know he'll use

he'll use real archeological sites and he'll often give

lots of real context for them, which ancient aliens does a little bit,

but ancient aliens usually it's very quick to abandon whatever archeologists

saying they strayed into.

But what if there was an intergalactic Arctic alien war?

And that's the reason why it's referencing back

to the episode of the show that I was on, right?

We were talking about, you know, people.

Hearing Q. Around tunnels. Exactly.

Which is a site that Hancock talks about in the in the documentary, too,

which I thought was a neat little fun connection.

But Hancock will spend much more time talking about the archeology

he brings on guests who are ostensibly archeologists.

It's trickier to put into the territory of crackpot.

He's I think it's just a smarter show.

It's designed for a more modern audience, and it's designed

to draw people in who

maybe don't have a lot of experience with archeology because a lot of his

and I've seen this so much in comments on my YouTube videos and on Twitter

and everywhere where all this discourse is happening, people say again

and again, you know, I don't know this this stuff doesn't sound so crazy to me.

It sounds perfectly legible.

And you have to have kind of a a pretty decent archeological knowledge

before you can start to pull apart some of his cases.

And ancient aliens, I think, is much less so. Right.

It's easier to look at that go, This is ridiculous. Right?

It's it's it's much easier.

It's so it's our job easier a little bit sometime.

Yeah.

But the difference between our ancient aliens and ancient apocalypse

is, well, they're not trying to sell it to a new audience.

They want a conspiracy today with I.

It's the alien crowd who already believe in it.

While ancient Apocalypse Moore put itself

as I'm just asking questions.

And this is a science show.

Well, Hancock maybe don't want to be a scientist, a historian or an archeologist,

but he wants to present himself as presenting a scientific idea.

So to say.

Yeah, it's

it's like the audience, the ancient aliens,

I think, is, is looking to speak to insiders

who are already alien, people who are already conspiracy

theorists, people who are just into that stuff, whether seriously or not.

Right. Like sometimes people just watch that stuff for fun.

And I get that right. That's that's, that's okay.

People just watch it

the same way They might watch X-Files and they know that it's B.S.

and they're just having a good time with it.

And I think maybe the thing about ancient apocalypse, it's a tiny bit

more insidious is is exactly what you just said.

Like they're reaching for an audience who don't realize

but they're watching is, you know what it is?

They think it's something different.

And and that's a little bit that's a little bit alarming, I think.

And he's using quite clever methods.

For example, he always claimed that he hated that we were trying

to suppress him closing down because he's onto the truth of everything.

And, you know, scientist was always trying to keep a status quo.

For example, he brings up Clovis quite a lot.

Well, do you want to speak a little bit to the people who might not be familiar

with the Clovis?

Yeah, he he brings up this issue of Clovis and the quote unquote, Clovis

first theory, and he doesn't give us a ton of background on that.

And it's the context for this is really deep and it it's it's

something you learn in school if you're going to school for archeology

United States because it's an important part of the history of archeology.

But it's a kind of a a

it's a it really is that it's a part of the history of archeology.

Why should we care about this?

Well, Hancock has made this a centerpiece of his argument

because a huge part of the show and I would say this is a difference

from ancient aliens to is like you were saying,

there's a kind of a victim complex element.

And I think that's an intentional structuring of the show.

Like, oh, I'm I'm against the establishment.

And he has to paint archeologists that somehow this cabal of secret

like secret secret keepers and

and or at the worst, intentional secret keepers

and at the best just really, really doctrinaire

and and an old fashioned didn't like stick in the mud unable to change.

And so to that end, he brings up a couple of different

elements, things that have a little kernel of truth.

And one of those is this Clovis first theory.

And the closer theory is,

as its name suggests, it's a theory about the people of the Americas.

So it's a it's a theory that was the leading theory in archeology

for some number of decades, the middle of the 20th century,

about how humans first came to North and South America.

So the into the very distant ancestors of Native Americans.

Where did they come from and how did they how did they get here to

to these continents?

Because, you know, there's this big ocean separating them.

And and the archeological evidence suggested that that happened

a long time ago, but relatively recent compared to, say, somewhere like Africa

or Southwest Asia or much of Asia.

Right.

And so the theory was the club's first theory argues it's

the one everybody's heard of, right.

That during the last Ice Age,

the Bering Land Bridge was exposed because of lower sea levels.

People came across the Bering Land Bridge down through the ice free corridor,

which was this space that was opening

between the two ice sheets, covering what's now Canada

and then and then sort of highway down into North America and South America.

And it's a very elegant theory.

That's the word I always use for in class.

It's it it's nice because everything happens at just the right moment.

There's all these climatic shifts and at just the right moment, we've got

the beringia still exposed.

The ice free corridor is opening Clovis sites.

These sites

that have this very distinctive material culture,

including the really famous Clovis point, these big long

landslip points with a big flood up the center start to appear

all over North America right around 12 and a half thousand years ago.

So all of this sort of works, it seems to It seems to

it seems to to to to just work just right.

Except in the some sites started to emerge,

archeological sites started to be explored.

And in in the eighties in the nineties, particularly

as sites like Mesa Verde and Paisley caves at a rock shelter

and few others all over North America and South America that

made that sort of

started poking holes in this theory because mostly just because

the sites were too old, there were 13 and a half thousand, 14,000 years old.

They were just that it makes sense.

And there was a

huge debate in archeology at that time about whether those sites were real.

They needed to have extraordinary evidence,

which was which I think was reasonable, because you were undoing

many decades of archeological hypothesis to do that.

And there was an intense debate and some archeologists

were really unwilling to change their ideas about this.

But over time, those sites have been tested more and more

and more and more sites out of and even older sites have been founded.

And archeologists also started to do things like

listen to indigenous people more often.

And indigenous people were saying,

we think that our ancestors have been here longer and all of these things together

really led to a paradigm shift, a big flip over

in which

the Clovis first hypothesis is no longer the dominant theory in archeology,

and it hasn't been for probably around 25 years, about a quarter century.

Are there still Clovis first holdouts?

Absolutely. Of course there are.

That science is going to be it was going to be a difference of opinion on this.

But but the majority of archeologists nowadays do accept that the Clovis first

theory is not adequate

for explaining the earliest peopling of the Western Hemisphere.

So so bringing it back to Hancock and hopefully not being too long winded

here, it is a little bit of a complicated it's fine to bring that back to Hancock.

He wants his viewers to believe that archeologists

still believe in Clovis first and are unwilling to change their minds

because it's or at least to point to this time

when there was a great debate about this and say that's how archeologists are.

They never change their minds.

They're never willing to accept new information.

Look at how they treated Jim out of Oso and the folks

excavating Monteverdi excuse me, Meadowcroft rock shelter.

Right.

Look at and,

you know, is there a kernel of truth in that was a guy like Jim out of Oso

treated badly in that site was given an extraordinary level of scrutiny probably.

But first of all, as a quarter century ago.

And second of all, ultimately, I think in many ways, Clovis

first is a case study for why Hancock is wrong about this,

because when the evidence continued to build, archeologists

did change their mind.

And today the majority position has totally shifted.

And most archeologists do believe in a free Clovis occupation

of North and South America.

So it's I just don't think it holds water.

So he's he's he's creating a strawman there. Right.

And it's from a with a kernel of truth not to mix several metaphors wildly,

but it's a it's a straw man with a kernel of truth at the heart of it.

And, and yeah, so that's, that's, that's my thoughts on that.

But others maybe would disagree with me.

But I think that's what's going on there.

If you start to look at people disagree and you will find that in all places

of life and even among archeologists, for example, what's his name?

Thompson Eric Thompson, who was quite vocal against

how we interpret the manuscript before

it broke in the seventies there somewhere.

So there has been these people trying to hold back,

but they've always failed when all the all the reports

started, they're starting to come in because that's how science work.

We correct it when we get better information.

So it's somewhat telling a half a story

and then want to sell you that, Oh, look how they never change.

As you mention here.

And you also have had a bit of falls

tactic in how he approaching criticism.

He refused it most of the times, but some of his followers, others have a

bit of a

grass roots movement that you've seen a bit of the rougher

end of, especially with the rate my professor dot com for example,

would you want to share your experience with the website and.

Yeah this, this whole thing got quite nasty and and how much of this

lays on Graham's shoulders I think is hard to say.

But those of us who have been critical of the show

and I think people have really been pretty mild mannered about this

I mean, what did I do?

I made a couple of YouTube videos that sort of talked about it

and just trying to give some context in which I talked about things like Clovis

and those YouTube videos got some traction.

They got a lot of use and and that that

that that put me in the crosshairs of a couple of people

probably most obviously is a very large YouTuber who goes by Bright Insights

a guy named Jimmy Corsetti who was a who's regular on a Joe Rogan.

He's a buddy of Graham's but he's he's yeah, he,

he he likes to get down in the mud a bit more than some of these other guys.

Graham has this very long I don't I don't do these sorts of things.

I'm like, I'm going to have long debates about who I will debate

with on the Joe Rogan show.

And and he sort of tries to be above this.

But Jimmy's more a down in the mud sort of a guy.

And and we had some sort of an exchange on Twitter

and then he blocked me and whatever.

I thought that was the end of it. Okay.

Whatever you interact with the person, somebody blocks you.

I never will knock somebody who wants to block me.

That is their right to block people when when I don't want to talk to them anymore,

I don't care. But he he then went and

we all have.

But it's not hard to screencap.

He went on Twitter and so this guy just give you a look.

This guy has like one and a half million YouTube subscribers.

He has a very large following.

And he went on and he sort of went to his followers

and said, Hey, I think, you know, we should get dirty with these guys.

And he was done was talking about me specifically.

He was sort of saying all of this

for a group of people who are Christians criticizing him and Hancock and others,

and he and he had specific suggestions you should go and

write fake reviews about their books.

You should write fake rate.

My professor reviews.

You should call up their h.r.

And pretend to be a student and make stuff up about them.

Try and get them fired from their jobs. Pretty nasty stuff.

And just about all the i had about just about all those things happened to me

most publicly was i my rate my professor review reviews were review bombed

relatively low

stakes and I got something like 15 or 20 very fake rate.

My professor reviews one star rate my press reviews with really nasty stuff

in them, hilariously fake writing, things

that no student would ever write about.

Classes I don't even teach anymore.

And just, you know, obviously factually incorrect stuff and rate.

My professor took some of them down, but have left about a half dozen of them

up, which has ruined my rate, my professor page and my my scores

and refuses to take them down or even reply to me.

They don't even like they won't reply to my messages

in my request to talk to them or give them evidence of what happened.

So that remains there.

So this is the this is the the stuff you got to deal with.

I guess if you want to if you want to criticize stuff on the Internet.

I think if you take a look

at the criticisms I've had, they've been pretty fair and mild.

But they they they certainly it some people

so yeah that's that's that's been my that was an an that was an annoying

couple of days where i was on the phone with my university h.R.

And the university police department and then having talked to them

about all this stuff, it was it was was stressful.

It was stressful, but it is what it is.

It's now it's not.

Sustainable that the university can't help with the rate.

My professor dot com or they.

Can't with that I mean I was the university was great

and I spoke to my dean and all those people

and they were like listen if we're going to get fake

calls from people, like that's not going to affect you.

We know what's going did first of all, this stuff happens.

This is not unusual for academics, actually.

And some academics work in much more contentious fields than we did.

And they get a lot of this, you know, this kind of and and and also, of course,

my colleagues who are women or people of color

get get orders of magnitude more of this crap.

I do.

So getting a taste of it for sure.

And it's and it's it's unpleasant.

It makes me more empathetic.

But they,

you know, they're like, we've we've this is not our first rodeo, so to speak.

And they they knew what was going on.

But my professor is just some website, just some business, you know, or whatever.

And and it seems to be running kind of on autopilot at this point.

Seems to be they're just letting algorithms do everything.

And I don't know, I don't think there's any actual humans.

They're answering messages anymore.

This is my this.

Is my I think it's from when I looked into the site, it looks abandoned.

They don't really have a parent company. Really.

Nobody seems to care it as long as it's running and give them some ad revenue.

This just. Seems to be. Perfectly happy.

With their help.

Pages are just broken web links, you know, So you you're trying to find who

can I send an email to so that I can have a conversation and explain what happened.

And you can't do it.

No way to do it.

So I don't like, you know, adding them on Twitter

and sending them Instagram messages, which they completely ignored.

So, you know, so it is what it is.

I don't know.

I don't think.

You know, that was an exact science on the Web site that you call

in the contact and the one not really give them a lot of credibility.

At the end of the day, I don't. Think so.

And I don't get the impression that students value it that much.

There was a time maybe five, ten years ago when it was an important tool, and

I just don't know.

I just don't know if there's any students anymore.

So sorry, My professor, they probably would if you, you know,

treated yourself with a little more respect.

That's just me.

So what rating would you give Ancient apocalypse.

You know, it's embeds on how I'm going to give you.

I'm going to give you a real weaselly answer.

It depends on on and who's rating it in some ways, I think it transcends

ancient aliens a lot in its

in its reaching for legitimacy and credibility.

The getting on Netflix.

And of course, you know,

we all know that you know I know there's some questions about how we get it

on Netflix right he's got a he's got some familial connection shall we say.

I don't know idea or utilized maybe not I don't want to.

But you know it's it raises some questions Right.

But he was is the show was on this really mainstream platform it's higher

production value I think than anything that ancient aliens has ever done.

It's it's smarter

about how it presents its arguments to make them seem more reasonable

and to reach out to a broader audience of people who maybe aren't

already quite invested in these alternative hypotheses, shall we say.

But so you could

you could see that as a well, that's that's really an improvement.

They really do a good job.

Or you could say, wow, that's extra manipulative and gross and ratings.

So it depends on your perspective.

I guess the show is certainly very slick in how it was made

and how it was produced,

how was advertised and how it was how it was put out there.

But in in in other ways, I think it's it's

it's really disingenuous and and it uses it does a lot of things falsely

that it knows it's

being false about it does it anyway so that I don't care for very much.

So thank you for your time

I will let you get back to your work is starting your day.

Yes but to do everything.

Well, thank you for your time.

It was very appreciated.

Yes. Thank you for having me back.

And any anytime you want to chat more, I'm around.

Thanks again to Dr. Farley.

And you should go back and listen to his previous appearance back in episode

12, links to his YouTube channel and all the other good stuff

can be found in the shownotes.

So let's get back into the program.

Hancock brings us across the globe to a place famous for its hot sauce

and having the largest pyramid on earth.

Welcome to Cholula, located in Puebla, Mexico.

This might not be the tallest pyramid in the world, measuring

only some 25 meters or 82 feet in height.

But by volume, it's the grandest of them all

the sides measure 315 times

300 meters or 1033 times

984 feet,

and were built around the late pre-classic Mayan period,

almost simultaneous, to the Teotihuacan construction.

We can see the influences of this larger city

on the Cholula pyramid in its earlier stages.

They use, for example, the architectural style talud-tablero meaning

that they have part of the wall sloping, then followed by a straight section.

Now, Hancock visits brings us some excellent

film of the locations and the tunnels within

the Cholula pyramid.

Sure, one could discuss the Azteca and Concheros dancers' clothing.

But we will glance over this for now.

Now this is a topic that we might revisit one day, but not today.

Now, Hancock's dating of the site isn't really too strange, to be honest.

He says it's around 500 BCE while it's a little bit off

and he doesn't really give any reason for the date, it's not extreme.

Usually, the pyramid is dated

to between 400 BCE and 200 BCE,

but the 200 BCE date is more likely since it's

based on ceramics found at the sites that we can date.

And Graham spends most of the time walking around the tunnels

beneath the pyramid. And they bring up a small spring

that Hancock claims it's beneath

the Cholula pyramid, but in reality, it's more to the west

side of it.

And this is a natural spring that feeds into a marshy area

that's a bit recessed beside the pyramid.

And if you have been with us sometimes, or well read on my mythology,

you might recognize this scene a little bit from the creation myth.

We have what could be described as a ball court from where the maize god,

sprung. And water is an essential part of the Maya rituals.

As we discussed in the earlier episode.

So it's not strange that they build a temple so close

to a water source, a spring.

We should note that Hancock wishes that the pyramids

have something more in common than just a shape, Hancock says.

“The problem is that these structures are universally associated

with very specific spiritual ideas.

What happened to us after death?”

Now, in Graham Hancock's mind, all the pyramids all over the world

have a common idea that brings them together. Death and the afterlife.

And since they all share this idea, it's impossible for these structures to develop

independently, by the different people living in these regions.

But there's an issue, of course, with Hancock's reasoning.

The pyramids aren't all connected to the death or the afterlife.

Sure, the Egyptian pyramids were about death and many other of the pyramidal

buildings are connected to the religion or different ceremonies.

And sure, religions tend to claim

to have answers to what happens when we die, or after we die,

maybe more

But that's as close as we get to this idea of this

pyramids, symbols, death, and the afterlife.

For example, the pyramids, in mesoamerica, were more connected

to life.

The Pyramid of the Sun in Teotihuacan commemorates

the creation story, for example. And the sacrifices

taking place on the pyramids throughout Mesoamerica was to ensure

the continuation of life and to celebrate life.

And the mounds of North America were filling several different function,

ranging from ceremonial locations,

long houses, meeting places etc.

It's not correct to attribute them only to

what happens when we die or an afterlife.

We have the temples in India and Cambodia that have a religious connection

but not really connected to either death or the afterlife.

Sure, they're part of the religion where those questions are answers,

but these buildings themselves aren't connected

to death part of the religion.

And then we have the pyramids in China that we again see or use as tombs.

So there we have the death.

But what Hancock does here is

cherry-picking the data, so it fits his narrative,

leaving out the misses and only focusing on the hits.

The same thing that he accuses archeologists are doing.

Isn't that a little bit funny, isn't it?

But let's move into Hancock's favorite pastime.

Looking at the myth from an esoteric lens, you see, there is a legend that

the Giants built the pyramid of Cholula

after seven of them survived the Great Deluge.

And the first and only account of this the story is written a book called

“Ophiolatreia,” published in 1899.

In it, the anonymous author retells a report from a nameless

Dominican priest who visit Cholula in 1566. The story show

signs of Christian influence, something not really uncommon when they in the past

retold the pagan myth. For example, Snorre Sturlasson's

poetic edda does the same with the Nordic pagan myth.

We must remember that objectively writing down scholarly material wasn't

or is a relatively fresh idea in a sense.

Even if giants appear in mesoamerican creation stories

their portrayal is very different from what we see

in this anonymous source that Hancock refers to here.

Also, while there's some connection

to a great flood within the Mesoamerican religion, it's

just one of many different ways the world gets destroyed.

We have the deluge.

But another world was destroyed by dogs, for example.

We need to evaluate myth critically, some might have good information.

Lipo, Hunts, and Hoa's recreation of how

the Maui statue could have been moved is based on legends.

But viewed from a critical lens.

So archeologists do use legends,

but we need to look at them more objective. Something we should address

before we move on to our last stop for this episode, I want to again

bring up this idea of the Kukulkan or Quetzalcoatl.

At least Hancock in the series doesn't claim

that Quetzalcoatl was a white man, any longer,

but he still has this idea that this god came from the east

Now within Mesoamerican mythology,

Quetzalcoatl has two sides,

basically one part creator / destroyer of the universe

and one part cultural hero.

Now what Graham Hancock seems to do is to confuse the hero

part of the story with the God part of the story.

Quetzalcoatl, as a culture hero, is a bit confusing since it talks

about a ruler sometimes referred to as one reed or Topiltzin-

Quetzalcoatl. The demise of one reed varies

depending on the version and when it was told in some versions.

The end of Quetzalcoatl or one reed

is that he sailed east or west,

burned himself up, became the Morningstar, moved to the Tlilapan,

became sick and just died

or split the ocean just like Moses did. Again

we have captured Hancock in a sort of orchard

filled with cherry trees, and the idea that Quetzalcoatl was white is an invention

from Geronimo, De Mendiata, a Franciscan Missionary

and chronicler, who lived between 1522 and 1604

In this work, Historia eclesiástica

indiana, volume two, chapter ten.

We learn about some of the histories of Quetzalcoatl.

De Mendieta probably based this on a now lost the writing of Andrés

de Olmos. Another priest operating a bit earlier than than de Mendieta.

But in this chapter we learn that Quetzalcoatl

or Kukulkan was described as follows:

“He was a white man, tall in body, broad

forehead, large eyes, long black hair

and large round beard.”

Now let's

head over east from Mesoamerica

to the Mediterranean Sea and just south of Sicily,

we have three islands Gozo, Comino and Malta.

This little island-

nation is home to some of the oldest known megalithic structures.

And we covered these buildings recently in a episode

called Aliens and Ancient Engineers.

And what's interesting is that Hancock's claims don't differs

too much from the old ancient alien episode.

We still have this idea of outside forces coming to the islands and helping

these poor farmers who have never built anything bigger than a shack.

And the funny thing is, the ancient alien proponents

agree with their mainstream interpretations of the dating

of the sites, while Hancock does not, as we will learn here.

But Hancock, he disagreed with the conventional dates,

that putt this site between 3600 BCE and 3200 BCE.

He admits that there are datable artifacts and things from the sites,

but then handwaves them away, saying that of course,

those parts were built later. But the rest of them is

built a lot, lot earlier, of course.

And the director of the show does a great job of giving the impression

that these sites have been berelyinvestigated.

But there's actually been ample dating on these sites.

There are both Optically Stimulated Luminescence testings.

So we test quartz, for example,

to see when it was subjected to sunlight.

And when we performed this test, the dating lands about 3600

BCE to 3080 BCE

Add to this Accelerator Mass Spectrometry a form of carbon dating

that has given us dates between 3600

BCE and 3200 BCE.

But the date Hancock want is around 10,000 B.C.

so we have set out to find someone who agrees with him on this date.

Hancock does this little sneaky thing again here claiming that we will use

archeoastronomy, which is a real thing

or, well, Graham calls it the knowledge of the ancients.

Now, in reality, he is not really using archeoastronomy in that sense here.

If he did, it wouldn't really fit with his theory.

Instead, the interview a Dutch juridical translator

by the name of Lenie Reedijk. And Redick believes that the temples of Malta

align with the brightest stars Sirius.

To get this theory to work, the construction time of the temples

according to Redick and Hancock, we need to push

back of the building of the temples to 9000 BCE.

The reason why they selected this date is unclear because some temples

aline better if constructed it in 5350

BCE or 4250 BCE, but we could also use other signs or stars,

for example, orient the temples towards

Centuri, the equinoxes or the solstices.

Why these orientations are not

viable is never explained or even presented within the show.

They also leave out that the Southern Cross lines up

a lot better with all the temples on Malta. In contradiction to the Sirius alignment

that would only work with some of the temples.

And even then, if the date would be moved

back, the southern cross or the Crux would make more sense

for the Maltese sailors since they used this to navigate to

and from Sicily. And using the crux as an alignment also fits with the time

frame from when we know that the temples were built based on our dating.

However, Hancock has an ace in the arm.

This evidence of earlier human habitation than scholars have thought

or well, human-like habitation.

In the cave of Għar Dalam

Two teeth were found in 1917 by Mr. G.

Despott and identified as Neanderthal. This was based on the teeth

perceived pulp chambers or taurodontism.

But this identification was never replicated,

and it seems to have been wrong from the start.

It doesn't mean that it's impossible that Neanderthals lived on Malta.

They were across throughout Europe.

Of course they could have come to Malta, but.

But we don't have any evidence for it.

Plausible, Yes. Proven?

No, not yet. At least.

Maybe one day in the future.

But of course, we need some evidence first.

These teeth were not the case. And I will gloss over the cart

ruts here they brings up in the episode,

because I went into them in greater detail in the earlier episode of Malta.

But as the research stands right now, it's most likely natural marks

from carts hollowed out more by erosion over time.

And to close this segment out, Hancock comes up with a quite,

quite the interesting remark in the show to get the connection

between Malta, ancient Egypt and Osiris.

He claims that the boats of Malta have the eye Horus painted on them.

Some look like it on the modern vessels, but

the tradition does not originate from Egypt.

It actually originates in Greece and Rome, and these eyes were to ward off

envy and harm. Concepts that were well-known in Greek and Roman literature.

So Hancock's Osiris connection topple over like a cow in the night.

Now, to close out the show, I want to introduce our next

and last guest.

So I want to welcome to the show

Kayleigh from the YouTube channel history with Kayleigh .

Well, do you maybe want to tell the audience

a little bit about yourself if they're not familiar with you already?

Sure. Yeah.

My name is Kayleigh .

I'm from the Netherlands. I'm 31.

I'm officially a high school dropout, but I've been passionate

about history since I was young, especially the Stone Age.

Um, so when I got about ten years ago, I had a surgery

that made me unable to work.

So I started researching things in my free time because I had a lot of that.

And eventually I decided to create videos on the research that I was doing.

So that led to me creating my YouTube channel

and I started making videos on structures from the Stone Age,

and eventually it led to me doing a whole lot of other things and.

Earlier this year, like last year,

I started doing anthropology on my channel and that's currently my focus.

But I still love the Stone Age structures and the mystery surrounding them.

So I decided to review the Ancient

Apocalypse series from Graham Hancock on Netflix and.

I'm making a review for every episode.

I'm making one video and eventually I will have covered

everything and looked at the facts and the fiction.

What are you familiar with the Hancock before you started

the reviewing project, or

was he new to you as a history learner?

Oh, he was definitely not new to me.

I've been following his work for about a decade now

and yeah, of course in the beginning I was quite intrigued

and I thought that maybe he's on to something.

But the more I looked into things myself and researched them for myself,

I learned that a lot of things that he's saying is very embellished

and not necessarily based on factual evidence.

So yeah, I mean, I've seen his podcasts on the Joe Rogan experience.

I, I'm very familiar with him.

It's just that for the videos on Ancient Apocalypse,

I only look at what he says in the show, and I don't focus on

anything outside of the show because for the people that aren't

familiar with him, they're only going to see the show at first.

And based off of that, they're going to eventually

create their opinion and I didn't want to.

And yeah, how do I say that?

I didn't want to make sure that people that weren't familiar with him

heard things that they didn't see in the show.

On the stand.

The bull approach is a bit different than maybe some others have had to.

Joe, what did you feel when you saw the episode?

Did you feel that it's more I'm not sure if you're familiar

with the ancient aliens and those type of documentary.

How do you feel it compares to these more extreme

the of claims compared to Hancock?

Is Hancock more easily to get sucked in by

or will people react differently?

Do I think it's a bit of a mix?

On one hand, he is equally overexaggerating in my opinion,

but on the other hand he's

writing it in a way that makes it sound plausible.

And I think that's a bit of the catch of the show.

It sounds plausible enough for people

who aren't aware of the Stone Age history.

For them, it may sound like, Oh, this could actually be a thing,

or this could have happened like, exactly like he says it happened,

but when you actually research it, you find the flaws and you find the holes.

You can get sucked into it very easily.

Sorry, my cats are doing their thing, but I mean, yeah,

you can get sucked into it very easily, especially if you're unaware of it

because the the shows, it looks good.

And he tells the his stories in a way that it's intriguing.

He's very charismatic guy.

That doesn't mean that he's right, though, so you can get sucked into it.

But I hope that most people that have watched it will also do their own research

to form their own opinion, not just take his opinion as fact.

Did you have any issues of watching the episodes?

I know many of you already feel there being the wandering holes

in their living rooms, shouting at their televisions.

Did you feel that was a struggle to watch or.

Yeah, yeah, honestly.

Episode one First 2 minutes.

I paused, walked away from my laptop and told myself, Am I really going to do this?

Like I don't want to attack a person.

I only want to attack their work or like not even attack.

It's a critique

and I don't want to attack anyone or make it sound like I'm attacking anyone.

It's just that I very much do not agree with him

on not just one or two things, but it's like when I make my scripts,

I pause nearly every 30 seconds to write down

doesn't mean that it'll be in the end script that I create.

It just means that that's how long it takes for me to watch an episode.

So an episode of like 25 minutes takes me about an hour and a half

at least to get through because I yeah, something.

And then I'm like, Ooh, is that really the case?

And then I have to research it, look it up,

get all the facts straight, then write something down, then go back.

And then within 10 seconds I'm like, really?

Again It's. And you know, then you keep.

Yeah, it's, it's a thing.

I don't recommend doing it.

Let's keep it of that.

Like I started this and yeah, from the moment I started it

I actually regretted doing it because it's so much work.

Like I normally have my videos, a few scientific papers

that are available on like a species or structure.

And that's super easy for me because I have my research all caught out.

I know what to do or no one right.

And I can write a script and like, what, 8 hours

and be lately done with this?

It's like an hour and a half to watch the show, including some research.

Then I have to go back, researched deeper,

and then try and create a script that sort of

easy to follow.

Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. I know that feeling.

You're describing my process, basically.

So I'm familiar with that one.

It takes some time to put everything together.

I've put some of the articles that have come out by archeologists

and other historians in the field, but I rarely look at them

when I'm writing my scripts or watching the show because I don't want

their opinion to influence mine.

Yeah, I have a strong opinion of my own, but I don't want to take

the words of someone else accidentally or things like that.

Yeah, this can be a helpful approach to it,

but let's talk a little bit about what he says.

Not necessarily the version, but what did you find

most interesting in the few episodes you have seen so far?

It covers a couple of sighs.

Was there anything you felt, Wow, this was exciting.

Even if it was maybe portrayed a bit faulty.

For me, The one of the very few things

that I very much enjoyed of the show was the

renders.

Like, I think it's like 3D renders of what some of the sites

could have looked like in their prime.

Those shots I absolutely love.

I think the creative team behind it did a fantastic job on them.

It looks amazing.

It helps me to try and figure out in my mind

what things could have looked like in the past.

It's something that I've tried to do myself for a long time.

Yeah, seeing them in a render on the screen.

Yeah, that to me that's exciting because.

Oh, that it could have looked like that.

On the other hand, with the Bimini Road

episode four episode,

I'm very unconvinced, you know.

No, but with Shogun China in Malta,

I think that looked fantastic.

I absolutely think it fantastic.

And the Pyramid in the second episode,

that looked good, too, in the venue of that, that looked amazing.

And I was like, Ooh, could have looked like that for sure.

Yeah, that's possible.

Yeah.

I must say that they actually did bring in some good

3D modelers on the show and that helps a lot.

Yeah.

To get people picturing how it was back then, even if it's not an exact carbon

copy of the site, it's still, you know, gives some imagination.

And those type of produce has been part of ideology for a long time.

In reality, it's just that like we don't really utilize them

as much as we could do.

It's something we can apply in our own,

you know, outreach to the public in a sense.

Yeah, Yeah.

But from the episode you have seen, what did you feel

was the worst representation of a site or a.

Concept, the worst representation,

I'm afraid I also have to go back to Malta because, yes,

Malta is very well known by archeologists.

It's extremely well excavated, actually.

They research it thoroughly then the archeologists in Malta

and that have worked on Malta in the past have done tremendous work and he made it

look like they barely did anything and they got all their facts wrong.

And they just don't want to admit that there was this

ancient civilization that took over everything

and just built everything and then disappeared like, No, no.

It's extremely well known that on Malta, the temples were created

by the Neolithic temple builders, and they did an amazing job.

And you can even see other structures is on the island of Malta and Gozo

that it wasn't a thing that they just did.

It was a gradual thing.

There are things older than the massive temples

like some of the doorman's and other sites on the islands that predate

Shogun Chia and Jarring

and an idea that he didn't look at

and didn't show in the Netflix series because that would ruin his story.

So I think the worst representation that he gave was the Malta episode so far.

I mean, Bernini, it's just yeah, but I mean, everyone

Bernini is just it's a fun story, but it's not true.

But on Malta he very much badly represented the work done there.

Yeah, Malta.

But you've been on Malta I think even. Yep.

Last year

for ten days I've

seen all the temples, most of the Dobermans,

most of the car drugs I've been inside the house are Fellini, Hypogeum.

So I've seen things myself with my own eyes.

I've been there, I've not touched anything because that's something I don't do.

It's all about preservation of these sites.

Is there something you wished that Netflix aired

instead of this type of type of documentary?

If you were the producer, what would you make instead the

For documentary show?

Honestly, I would have contacted Dr.

Lee Berger and asked him to film the excavation course in the rising star

Cave system and all the amazing things

on homo naledi that they found there.

And show that process,

show how an actual excavation season

goes, not just one day of an excavation where they might not find anything

but a film, an entire excavation season, and show that to the public, like,

of course, take out the fun stuff and leave out the boring stuff.

That's fine, but show people

what a real excavation is like.

Yeah, on the

field with the people, with the experts.

Show how they speculate about things as they are finding it before

they research, because of course they speculate a little bit here and there.

And that's fun to see.

This might be from this or this might

push to that narrative

or just show the real stuff, show real excavations,

show real historians and archeologists and paleo anthropologists

while they are working and not just sitting in front of the camera,

because that's what we currently do when we show them mostly.

I mean, when the homeowner lady was first discovered, they did film

with National Geographic and they showed excavations.

The my video on Home on a Lady blew up was because

of that amount of interest because it was filmed in the past.

So people remember seeing it and wanting to know more, wanting

to learn about new information that has possibly come out since then.

I think we should look more

on the real stuff and not just the ancient aliens ancient

advanced civilization narrative that honestly is based on nothing.

Yeah, old esoteric text for the most part.

That's long fantasy stuff.

Well, I like the esoteric part of it.

Like I've done this Egypt war with an A on an esoteric tour.

So I understand that way of looking at it.

But even then, the tours focused on the real history

and games, esoteric information on the site.

It wasn't about that.

The esoteric thought of it and thought behind

some of the things was like the only way to look at it.

We know the excavations and then we see these symbols

and this is created in a in a certain way, and that might have this

or that, meaning whether you believe that

meaning is up to you, that's how that tour went.

So the esoteric part of it, I don't mind.

It's just that we need to focus on the real history and real archeology

before we think about an ancient advanced culture that lived on the planet,

came from Atlantis and then went with their boats and everywhere and then

everywhere they went, only one arrived

and sometimes even like, what, 9000 years after Atlantis disappeared?

Like what? What is your story like? Yeah.

Giants and and and loses is no please no.

Seems to be a difference between using this heroism to end to exist and all this

but what again the mundane it can do is to use philosophy

selflessly esoteric as as the lens who we look through the myth on.

So if people want to more from you and

or have your show, where should they go and find you?

If they want to watch me on YouTube with my thorough videos,

they go to history with Kelly L on YouTube.

Very easy to find usually when you do history

with and just to k you can find me because most people can't write my name

on Twitter.

I'm Kelly History and on Instagram history with Kelly as well.

Also, I have a Facebook page, but I rarely use it,

so don't don't bother even bother.

All right, so look her up on Twitter, YouTube and Instagram.

Yeah.

Thank you for your time, Kayleigh, and see you some other time.

Yeah, my pleasure.

Thanks again to Kayleigh.

Links to her products can be found in the show notes,

but for now, we will close the books for this time.

But make sure to return next time

The exploration will take us to Göbekli Tepe, Poverty Point

Serpent Mound and back to Derinkuyu.

We will also be guest by Dr.

Kinkella from the Pseudo- Archeology Podcast

and maybe some more interesting people.

So make sure to tune back in next time.

But till then, remember to leave a positive you anywhere you can,

such as iTunes, Spotify or to your friend at the trench.

I also recommend you to visit digging up ancient aliens dot com to find more info

about me on the podcast and you can also find me on most social media sites.

And if you have comments, corrections, suggestions or you WANT TO WRITE AN EMAIL

IN ALL CAPS, you find my contact info on the website.

Now you will also find all the sources and resources

that I use to produce this podcast and

you often find further reading suggestions over there.

Sandra Martelour create the intro music

or outro music is from the band called Trallskruv, who will sing their song.

“Folie hatt”.

Links to both of these artists can be found in the show notes.

Until next time, keep shoveling that science.

I need to click on my little box because it's going to make no noise

and that's not going to be flushed out.

And cats

is always a naughty boy is so young and he doesn't understand life,

but he's always so naughty when I filming, think why?