Earth's ancient APOCALYPSE: Huge comet hit Earth 12,000 years ago - sparking an ice age that decimated humans, expert claims in controversial Netflix series

It's common knowledge that the dinosaurs were wiped out by an asteroid 66 million years ago.

But what if that wasn't the only time in Earth's history that a space rock triggered an ancient apocalypse?

In a new Netflix series, controversial author Graham Hancock claims that an ancient super-civilisation in Antarctica was destroyed by a collision with a comet 12,000 years ago.

If true, Mr Hancock's theory would overturn almost everything we know about the story of human civilisation.

However, many experts are concerned that the story of 'Ancient Apocolypse' is misleading, with some dismissing it as 'pseudoscientific.'

What is the ancient apocalypse theory? Beginning in 1995 with his book 'Fingerprints of the Gods', Mr Hancock has been one of the most vocal supporters of the ancient apocalypse theory.

Conventional archaeological wisdom holds that humans first changed from nomadic hunter-gatherers to settled farmers between 10,000 and 12,000 years ago.

This would lay the foundations for the first urban civilisations to arise in Mesopotamia, somewhere around 6,000 years ago.

Mr Hancock, meanwhile, maintains that an ancient civilisation lived in what is now Antarctica for many thousands of years before this time.

Then, around 11,600-12,800 years ago, he claims a series of cataclysmic events led to the demise of these ancient peoples around the end of the Ice Age.

Mr Hancock describes this period as 'an abrupt episode of cataclysmic climate change', although it's referred to in science as the 'Younger Dryas'.

Controversially, he also claims that the rapid shift in climate patterns was caused by a collision with a comet in what he calls the 'Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis'.

'12,800 years ago the Earth crossed the debris stream of a very large, disintegrating comet and was bombarded by hundreds of fragments, some large, some small,' Mr Hancock says.

'It was the resulting shock of these impacts and airbursts that triggered the Younger Dryas.'

However, before they vanished, this ancient civilisation supposedly travelled the world building monuments and teaching other people the foundations of civilisation.

In his new Netflix series, Ancient Apocalypse, Mr Hancock follows in the footsteps of these lost humans to find the traces of their history.

In the second season, Mr Hancock once again sets out to find evidence for his theory, this time focusing on the Americas.

Speaking to a number of archaeologists and, inexplicably, actor Keanu Reaves, Mr Hancock travels across the continent looking for structures which hint at a more ancient society.

Mr Hancock says: 'Ancient Apocalypse is my own story, in my own words, of my own boots-on-the-ground investigation into the controversial possibility of a lost civilization of the Ice Age.'

Why is the ancient apocalypse theory controversial? While Mr Hancock's theories make for a great documentary, they don't stand up to much scientific scrutiny.

Numerous experts have pointed out that the evidence used in the show is at best flimsy and, at worst, outright misleading.

Dr Flint Dibble, an archaeologist at Cardiff University who spoke with Mr Hancock on The Joe Rogan Experience, told MailOnline: 'Most sites on the show are misrepresented in different ways, sometimes small, sometimes large.'

For example, in the first episode of the new season, Mr Hancock refers to the fossilised footprints at White Sands National Park, New Mexico.

Dr Dibble says: 'He states that archaeologists have not directly dated the footprints at white sands, when in fact the sediments under, part of, and above the footprints are directly dated by OSL [optically stimulated luminescence] providing a direct date for them.'

Likewise in season one, Mr Hancock claimed that the 11,000-year-old Göbekli Tepe site in Turkey was built by a society capable of farming.

While the initial excavators thought this was the case, new evidence has clearly shown that bones and seeds at the site were from wild animals - proving the monuments at Göbekli Tepe were built by hunter-gatherers.

In another incident, Mr Hancock interviews the architect Professor Hillman Natawidjaja, who claims that the Gunung Padang site in Indonesia is 25,000 years old.

Shortly afterwards Professor Natwidjaja's paper on the site was retracted due to a 'major error'.

Dr Dibble says: 'The theory is about a lost civilization from the end of the Ice Age, but ignores all the evidence from that period we do have that is distributing across the world, on every continent and in every region.

'It also ignores all the scientific evidence that has amassed over the last 40 years from organic remains that clearly dates the development of agriculture to after the Ice Age in different regions of the world, independently from one another.'

The expert reaction to the show has been so bad that, after the release of season one, many called for Netflix to strip it of its 'docuseries' label.

In an open letter to Netflix, the Society for American Archaeology (SAA) wrote: 'Archaeologists have investigated hundreds of Ice Age sites and published the results in rigorously reviewed journals.

'The assertion that Ancient Apocalypse is a factual "docuseries" or "documentary" rather than entertainment with ideological goals is preposterous.'

If Graham Hancock were simply incorrect, this might not have caused much of a stir.

However, some experts also see the theories put forward in Ancient Apocolypse as actively harmful.

In the show, Hancock not only promotes his own ideas, but also attacks scientists who he calls 'arrogant', 'patronizing', and 'so-called experts'.

Dr Dibble says that this anti-intellectual streak is part of what makes the show so popular as Hancock rides a growing wave of opposition to experts.

While Dr Dibble says he wouldn't call the documentary 'dangerous', he adds: 'Hancock's narrative both on the show and on podcast appearances promotes a distrust in experts.'

Likewise, a number of archaeologists argue that the narrative of world history Mr Hancock promotes could provide the basis for more harmful ideas.

In the show, Mr Hancock argues that an ancient lost race is responsible for spreading civilisation to less advanced people around the world.

Experts point out that this implies indigenous people could not have created civilisation without outside assistance.

'It promotes a world view where many indigenous peoples around the world are not responsible for their cultural heritage,' Dr Dibble says.

This led Netflix to cancel a number of screenings of the documentary in Arizona and New Mexico following strong opposition from local tribal leaders.

Some even argue that this theory shares striking similarities with ideas which have inspired white supremacists.

In some versions of the myth of Atlantis, which is a clear inspiration for the show, the ancient super-race of the lost city were white Arians.

This idea would go on to inspire some theories of white supremacy which draw on the notion of an ancient Arian race.

While Mr Hancock does not explicitly mention race in the documentary, he has previously argued that caucasian people arrived in the Americas before Columbus.

Likewise, Hancock has also claimed that the Aztec god Quetzalcoatl was described as having white skin, a red beard, and blue eyes.

Dr Dibble has pointed out that the trope of white-skinned heroes arriving to bring civilisation was used to justify the Spanish crown claiming lands in the Americas.

In their open letter, the SAA wrote: 'The theory it presents has a long-standing association with racist, white supremacist ideologies.'