Skip to content

Alternative Theories And Academia’s Outrage

Graham Hancock’s Docuseries ‘Ancient Apocalypse’ has sparked fury from experts, scholars, and journalists.
This reaction should seem familiar.

The popular Netflix docuseries Ancient Apocalypse features self-described investigative journalist Graham Hancock and his theory that, as he puts it, we are a species with amnesia. He lays out a portion of the evidence he has amassed over the past few decades which suggests the existence of prehistoric civilizations far more advanced than modern accepted historians and archaeologists claim. Hancock ties in the universal flood mythology (including that flood in the Bible) to evidence of a global cataclysm that occurred 12,000 years ago at the end of the last Ice Age.

While the series gives a quick overview of his theory and some of the evidence, those who are familiar with Graham’s work know that there is much more out there. He’s appeared on Joe Rogan’s Podcast several times over the past several years, where he has detailed more evidence than is provided in the Netflix show, and he’s been writing books about his theory for decades.  His first, Fingerprints of the Gods (not to be confused with Chariots of the Gods by Erich von Daniken of Ancient Aliens fame) was published in 1995. He proposes that the accepted timeline of human history and development of advanced civilization is simply flawed or incomplete. Scholars have labeled his work pseudoscience.

Interestingly, these scholars and scientists rarely feel compelled to actually debunk his claims or offer explanations for the evidence Graham cites that doesn’t fit the accepted narrative. Simply labeling him a crackpot seems to be all the intellectual effort they can possibly spare on the subject, though a few have deigned to offer a resounding ‘nu-uh.’

The success of the Netflix series has brought about an interesting reaction in the form of semi-hysterical op-eds and astonishingly unsubstantiated accusations of white supremacy bemoaning the fact that such a dangerous show is even allowed.

Forgive my confusion. Where was this reaction for the past decade of Ancient Aliens episodes? Many of Hancock’s most strikingly anomalous ancient sites are in fact mentioned in von Daniken’s book and central to the Ancient Alien theories. Apparently popularizing ideas with little to no evidence whatsoever of their validity cooked up by a convicted conman is fine. The documentation that supports an alternative theory of ancient history as presented by an investigative journalist, on the other hand, should not be permitted and certainly shouldn’t be available for streaming on a paid subscription service.

In fact, by repeating the myths and legends of ancient civilizations, Hancock is revealing his darkest secret, according to Jenifer Sandlin of White Supremacy. Because Quetzalcoatl was described as being a bearded white man and Graham links that story to similarities with other deities like Osiris in Egypt, he is spreading heinous far-right propaganda that white people existed and were worshiped by ancient cultures. At least that’s what Sandlin says it means.

And here, once again, we face the familiar issue of experts and science. Only those in approved positions are allowed opinions on matters of science. How could anyone possibly look at information and draw conclusions without the years and years of study and instruction (lest we forget crippling debt) that comes with a degree? How dare anyone posit a theory that differs from the accepted version held in the tomes of modern academia? Certainly our esteemed experts have no vested interest in the theory they present as bona fide fact in the texts that they themselves authored and often use as required reading for their syllabi.

The science is settled. Obviously, we already know absolutely everything there is to know about history, ancient or otherwise. These dangerous pseudoscientific ideas, like the existence of civilizations we were unaware of, are preposterous. Nothing could ever disprove or alter our modern understanding of things that happened thousands of years ago.

The idea that there are things we don’t know is laughable. That a mere mortal like Graham Hancock could form an alternative theory and support it with evidence he has amassed over decades of travel and research? Hysterical. After all, the scientific method doesn’t allow for new evidence or competing hypothesis. Anyone who ever participated in a science fair project in elementary school can tell you that. You come up with a theory, prove it with cherrypicked evidence, and completely ignore anything that doesn’t fit.

Or so modern scholars and experts would have you believe. And you’d better! Believe them, that is. You’re not capable of thinking for yourself. You haven’t been taught what the acceptable thoughts are. Just shut up and accept what you’re told. If the scientific community agrees on something, they are right. Infallible. The worldwide existence of flood mythology is obviously just the result of localized events.

Floods happen all the time. It can’t be the result of one incident that all of them remembered and passed down through the ages. A sudden flood of that scale would require an enormous amount of water, and that would have to come from somewhere. And it would all have had to go somewhere.

The impact crater found in Greenland that indicates an asteroid hit and likely vaporized unfathomable amounts of ice exactly during the right timeframe? Yeah we don’t talk about that. That previously undiscovered civilization discovered in Mesoamerica? Nope.

Listen. They gate-keep information and access to evidence for a reason, okay? And that reason is very simple: It’s “for your own good.”

And so, my recommendation is: watch Ancient Apocalypse.

Be curious.

Question everything.

Consider possibilities, even ones that may seem far-fetched.

Draw your own conclusions.

Decide for yourself what is and is not plausible.

Be okay with saying “I don’t know.”

Genuine knowledge–actual truth–is only found through the real scientific method: Develop a hypothesis, test it, and adjust your conclusion accordingly. Then test it again and again.


  1. Here is an alternative theory to which I hope you will apply the principles of your article, and I will link you at the end to where you can find further information to help judge for yourself: there are no viruses.

    It sounds mental, right? In a stream, we heard Carter say that they had isolated the SARS-CoV-2 virus, which I took to be truth at the time. And how could they have assembled its genome with all of its variants for something that doesn’t exist? Absurd.

    But what I didn’t know at the time, is that virologists did to the word ‘isolate’ what they did to the word ‘immunity’: they changed its definition.

    Any normal person would define ‘to isolate’ as to completely separate something from everything else. So let me explain how virologists isolate a virus, and please note that this process (perhaps with minor modifications) applies not only to SARS-CoV-2, but all viruses that have been researched, ever:

    1) They take a sample (e.g. saliva) from a patient they believe to be infected with the virus. This sample will contain the alleged virus, human cells, bacteria, possible other contaminants that could be found in saliva (or whatever other substance is being used).
    2) They mix this into a medium containing Vero cells. Vero cells are monkey kidney cells. (In the case of SARS-CoV-2, why not use human lung cells which the virus purportedly infects?) The medium also contains minimal nutrition, starving the cells, and foetal calf serum, which helps keep the cells from decaying.
    3) They apply 2-3 antibiotics to kill off any bacteria in the sample. These antibiotics are nephrotoxic, meaning they are toxic to kidneys. (And we are using monkey kidney cells…) They may apply antifungals too.
    4) They then wait for signs of ‘cytopathic events’, i.e. cell death. When cytopathic events are observed, this is taken to be due to the virus infecting and killing the cells.

    Does that sound like isolation to you? No control experiment is performed to determine whether it is the ‘isolation’ process itself killing the cells. And the reason they use Vero cells, is because the same process using lung cells does not produce cytopathic effects.

    Let me give an overview of how they assemble viral genomes:

    1) A sample is taken from a patient believed to be infected with the virus.
    2) This sample is then cultured as per the above process, still with all of the contaminants I’d listed previously, as the virus has not been purified and isolated. The sample is cultured rather than just used as is, as it is believed that the original sample does not contain enough virus to sequence the genome.
    3) They then apply methods of chemical or physical extraction to break down the constituents of the sample into RNA for sequencing. The processes themselves may degrade the RNA, and of course we still have all of the now broken down contaminants present.
    4) They then break the RNA down into fragments, and the RNA fragments are converted to cDNA, which will be read by the sequencing software. Errors and artefacts can occur at both points, and the contaminants are still present.
    5) The sequence library is prepared, and the process to do this can be contaminated, produce errors, artefacts. This library is a set of DNA fragments which are then loaded into a sequencer to generate ‘reads’. They attempt to remove e.g. known human sequences from the library, but a) this process isn’t perfect, as known human RNA can still end up being detected and b) what of any unknown RNA from any contaminants?
    6) The sample is loaded into the sequencer, producing millions of reads, which a computer program (or two) then analyses, producing ‘contigs’ (overlapping sequences). They then pick the contig that is the longest. If one piece of software has the longest contig at 30,000, and the other piece of software has the longest contig at 50,000, they will choose the contig of 50,000. This is the viral genome.

    ‘Variants’ are thus the above process being replicated by various experimenters, differences explained by errors introduced at every stage of the process.

    It was not an easy journey for me to arrive at the conclusion that viruses don’t exist, though it was a journey that was made easier after being witness to the faulty science, lies, and deceit that we experienced during the pandemic – with which Unsafe Space helped me to identify tremendously.

    Please find further information at:

    Other videos by Sam Bailey on her channel are worth checking out too.

    Her husband, Mark Bailey, wrote a well-sourced essay, ‘A Farewell to Virology’:

    Hosted on a website whose name is (or used to be) after your own heart are some papers by former virologist Stefan Lanka:

    “The Virus Misconception Part 1 – Measles as an example”

    “The Virus Misconception Part 2 – The beginning and end of the corona crisis”

    “The Virus Misconception Part 3 – Corona simple and understandable”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Unless otherwise indicated, links to products listed on Amazon may be affiliate links for which Unsafe Space receives a small commission. © 2024 Unsafe Space. All rights reserved.