3 ms·

It's so hard to find decent documentaries to watch especially my favourite subject ancient history. I tend to find that anything 15 to 20 years old seems mostl

It's so hard to find decent documentaries to watch especially my favourite subject ancient history. I tend to find that anything 15 to 20 years old seems mostly free of the stink of "ancient aliens". And I find that YouTube is the best place to find them since any current streaming services are infested with junk "documentaries". I can only speak of Canadian versions of streaming services which tend to carry slightly different libraries compared to US or international versions.

defrost 4y ago
I'd support the creation of "recent histories" that document the rise of the myth of the Atlanteans following the works of Ignatius L. Donnelly [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_L._Donnelly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_L._Donnelly
moloch-hai 4y ago
It is to Hancock's credit that he acknowledges everything was built by regular people constrained by regular physics. Accusations of racism are as reprehensible as they seem. That he is not exactly clear on regular physics is a result of his background. (E.g. confusing axial precession with solar system dynamics.) What is clear, and that justifies his complaints, is that inconvenient evidence is very systematically ignored. Would-be debunkers uniformly avoid mention of any of the inconvenient evidence motivating the speculation, or admitting the problem it presents. The word for all of them (miniminuteman perhaps excepted) is "disingenuous". Obviously journalist Graham Hancock is not going to discover the scientific truth the evidence points to. But his cohort are the only ones tackling the questions. He does have a talent for lighting on the right side of controversy, e.g. the now well-established Canada ice sheet comet strike 12,800 years ago. Which no one mentions anymore. (NB: whether the comet strike had any role in kicking off the Younger Dryas cold spell is a separate issue, of no import here.) That all of the most impressive megalithic stonework is also the oldest, and that no one knows how old it really is, should be occupying all archaeologists full-time. They could find out how old it all is, if they cared, via surface luminescence.

defrost 4y ago

I'd support the creation of "recent histories" that document the rise of the myth of the Atlanteans following the works of Ignatius L. Donnelly [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_L._Donnelly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignatius_L._Donnelly

moloch-hai 4y ago

It is to Hancock's credit that he acknowledges everything was built by regular people constrained by regular physics. Accusations of racism are as reprehensible as they seem. That he is not exactly clear on regular physics is a result of his background. (E.g. confusing axial precession with solar system dynamics.) What is clear, and that justifies his complaints, is that inconvenient evidence is very systematically ignored. Would-be debunkers uniformly avoid mention of any of the inconvenient evidence motivating the speculation, or admitting the problem it presents. The word for all of them (miniminuteman perhaps excepted) is "disingenuous". Obviously journalist Graham Hancock is not going to discover the scientific truth the evidence points to. But his cohort are the only ones tackling the questions. He does have a talent for lighting on the right side of controversy, e.g. the now well-established Canada ice sheet comet strike 12,800 years ago. Which no one mentions anymore. (NB: whether the comet strike had any role in kicking off the Younger Dryas cold spell is a separate issue, of no import here.) That all of the most impressive megalithic stonework is also the oldest, and that no one knows how old it really is, should be occupying all archaeologists full-time. They could find out how old it all is, if they cared, via surface luminescence.