Supposedly there is this documentary on Netflix that shows some good evidence that an advanced Atlantis type civilization was destroyed in about 13,000 BC by a comet or something like that. This would push back human civilization from the hunter/gatherer stage back quite a bit, since most anthropologists say civilization as we know it started about 4,000 BC (even though sites in Turkey already show that is wrong).
This documentary has all the experts class people riled up about his apparently popular Netflix show. On Twitter, I see Bible believers of one stripe or another saying it's evidence for a flood type event from Genesis, which exists is most cultures' mythology. This may or may not be the case. Atlantis is a popular idea too, and the Atlanteans may have spread civilization out to the hunter/gatherers after the loss of their homeland in the flood.
I intend to watch it this weekend. Here's an article on it.
The series really cemented for me that Hancock is controlled opposition. It's not that you can't learn anything from the material or that he's lying about it, but he uses it to lead you astray from deeper truths. A limited hangout, if you will.
As, for example, with the Great Flood versus Atlantis. There is far, far more evidence for the Great Flood than for Atlantis. So why not do a show about the Flood? In the series he tiptoes around it. I can't recall with certainty, but I believe he mentions it only in passing a couple of times as a legend, giving no weight to it.
But why avoid talking about the Flood? Well, the Dark Occultists running the world wish to give no credence to the Bible. But beyond that, the true cause of the Flood was not actually God's punishment, but the passage through the inner solar system of Nibiru, and They really, really do not want anyone talking about that.
What if the great flood and the sinking of the Atlantis continent and its people are connected?
https://media.128ducks.com/file_store/7b845cc4eb829ce44540bcd597725045baf386d71de2f765cc46d0a7956bfcc9.pdf
I leave room for that, but more and more evidence stacks up to them being two distinct events, coming at either end of the Younger Dryas and about 1200-1400 years apart. The case for the Great Flood at about 13,000 years ago is particularly strong, coming from several quite independent lines of evidence.
Atlantis is much more fuzzy all around and I haven't studied it closely, but for a number of reasons my working thesis is that it was located in Antarctica. The best evidence for that has been assembled by Rand and Rose Flem-Ath. It seems Antarctica was displaced from significantly farther north, but if it was spontaneous or part of a larger crustal shift as discussed by Chan Thomas is still not firmly established (at least to my knowledge).
There are two interesting points for the conspiracy-minded as regards Antarctica. One is that after I first heard the strong case for it years ago, I find it's virtually never mentioned by Atlantis researchers. That fits the thesis that the vast majority of them are ultimately disinfo agents. The other is that we would finally get a clue towards explaining what all those Elites went down there to look at. I never bought that it was penguins.
Finally, through two very different associations, I connect both the Great Flood and Atlantis directly to the Anunnaki, a faction of whom the Elites still serve to this day. Taking that into account, I understood why the Elite believe it's so important to steer people over a cliff on both those issues.
There is more evidence for an advanced pre-ice age civilization than for a worldwide Flood as described in the Bible.
I've found that people that make definitive blanket statements have done little research, which is why they are reduced to making definitive blanket statements. I guess it makes them feel better about themselves.
Says the guy who just made a definitive blanket statement.
And yes, I've done some research on this, to make the tentative conclusion that there is more evidence (which is hardly definitive you statistics ignorant fool, as it could be 51% to 49%) that given geological and biological evidence the worldwide flood as described in the Bible didn't happen (that is the only survivors being on the Arc), notably genetic diversity among animals.
Speaking of statistics, I've noticed a correlation between ignorance and aggressiveness. You may wish to consider slowing down on advertising it.