These are not lessons but simply opinions.
This series is still the same as it was from the beginning. It consists of your beliefs stated in a factual manner while providing little in the area of legitimated sources. You may at times provide a source but that does not mean it's true. I could provide a source that would "prove" Obama is a reptile. You also assume that correlation denotes causality and this is a well known fallacy to commit. Cave drawings matching up to star patterns means nothing as there is not any way to prove causality between the two. Correlation does not denote causality!
Many of your arguments are unsound as well. For example, it does not follow that if a person is a Muslim they believe the earth is 6,000 thousand years and therefore must disregard any evidence that points to the contrary because of their religion. You make a personal assumption about a large group of Egyptologist's and their personal beliefs and have nothing to show us why you're right. You wouldn't say that because somebody is a Christian they believe in a literal six day creation and therefore must disregard all evidence to the contrary would you? That would be absurd because there are many Christians who do not believe in such a thing. Assuming what a person believes then basing a claim on that assumption to further your point is not a good idea. This is just one argument I remembered off the top of my head. If you want to truly reach people you need to state your beliefs in a less "matter of fact" way because to many people this is merely opinions based on little evidence. You also need to check your arguments for validity and soundness as arguments that are neither valid nor sound will not be heard by those who wish to discuss your views rationally in order to learn. I must admit I am guilty of assuming that you want to reach people though instead of just preaching to those that don't ask questions. Do you want to reach people or do you want to stand on a soapbox?
I read in one response to a review about 3 men who made "amazing" scientific discoveries and I promptly looked them up. Graham Hancock is a writer and journalist and his findings are generally criticized as pseudoarchaeology. This is the exact same story with John Anthony West. Robert Bavaul's findings are highly challenged by archaeologists and historians. Why should I believe them over scientist? Why did you claim these men made such great discoveries when they did not? This is where you make me suspicious. It is the second time I know of that you have exaggerated credentials in order to prove a point. A spiritual person certainly would not approve of this sly tactic unless you simply, again, neglected to research. I've also seen you disregard augments on both youtube and here. You do not respond to their points and it makes you look quite bad in the eyes of inquisitive people. If you cannot defend yourself then it appears as if you cannot back your opinions.