4 ms·

> With "pretty story" and "his take" which of the theories and facts are you referring to? The reason I ask because in each episode of this series there are lot

> With "pretty story" and "his take" which of the theories and facts are you referring to? The reason I ask because in each episode of this series there are lots of facts, and theories presented, and By the end of the season it's obviously a single story based on YDIH. Which is a fringe theory and he doesn't present any evidence to the contrary and doesn't select footage with anyone or anything that present evidence to the contrary. > not just by him, but by other scholars. Tell you more, there's a whole bunch of people who might support his take (cf Comet Research Group). Just like you can find many people who would support flat earth theory. Doesn't make it less of a fringe take though. In the end it's a play on existential fear, some white politics (those mysterious tall white bearded people who came to America and were treated like gods and taught Indians all the cool things), some Christian politics and biblical flood evidence, some conspiracy (various coverups he alludes to) crafted to get a particular demographic going.

keepamovin 3y ago
Well, I'm glad I seemingly read the mocking intent in your original comment correctly, but still tried to reply to the most generous interpretation that you were being friendly! It seems the various ideas espoused in Ancient Apocalypse is a sore point for you and I'm interested in why. To shape any discussion, it might be useful to understand the sources that contribute to your conclusions. What evidence have you that contradicts the facts and theories presented in the series? Also, what evidence that supports how all facts and theories presented reduce to YDIH? And, finally, what evidence for how YDIH is: a fringe theory; comparable to "flat Earth theory"; and motivated by "Christian white politics", existential fear and conspiracies? I guess I could speculate and speak to some of these, but I don't want to second guess your theory, so I'll leave it to you to fill it in if you want. Right now tho my feeling is your take is--I'm not sure "fringe" or not--but seemingly emotionally and ideologically motivated. Would that be impossible? I am genuinely interested in what alternative takes you have, too, if you care to share?
- throwaway290 3y ago
  Stop with the sarcasm won't you? As I already said I finished the series and enjoyed it. It's quite good, well scripted and beautifully shot captivating TV. It's unfortunate that it is science fiction presented as science. If you want to find available facts, as opposed to a story, it will take you just a few minutes (I think I provided a link you can start with), less time than what you spend commenting here.
  - keepamovin 3y ago
    No sarcasm there, man. What makes you say that? Anyway, nothing you have said contradicts anything in the series. It does express your ideological or emotional take, tho. I’m happy to reply here, otherwise i wouldn’t do it. It takes me no time. Let me take a stab at why you might be saying this: let me guess, you’re from East Asia or Russia (or both!), and Graham Hancock never paid meet adoration to your East Asian / Soviet centric view of the origin of civilization, right? In fact, Hancock, who you regard as a heretic, commits the punishable sin of not acknowledging the primacy and original origin of all Earth civilization in the cauldron of your unique little place in the world? In fact, his theories are coherent and dispute your worldview that “all under heaven” in fact first originated in China, Korea, Japan or Russia, am I right? Or just the fact that he suggests the origin of civilization was in "the West", is heretical enough, no? In short, Hancock is a insufferable betrayal of your Sovio/Sinocentric worldview, and any validity must be denied! Just an idea, a thought based on your attitude here and your comment history. Let me know how close I get OK? I’m feeling like I got a whole in one. Let me know if it’s a hole in none, alright? :) I do wish you had responded to my questions directly tho :( Oh well! :) Have a good one! :)

keepamovin 3y ago

Well, I'm glad I seemingly read the mocking intent in your original comment correctly, but still tried to reply to the most generous interpretation that you were being friendly! It seems the various ideas espoused in Ancient Apocalypse is a sore point for you and I'm interested in why. To shape any discussion, it might be useful to understand the sources that contribute to your conclusions. What evidence have you that contradicts the facts and theories presented in the series? Also, what evidence that supports how all facts and theories presented reduce to YDIH? And, finally, what evidence for how YDIH is: a fringe theory; comparable to "flat Earth theory"; and motivated by "Christian white politics", existential fear and conspiracies? I guess I could speculate and speak to some of these, but I don't want to second guess your theory, so I'll leave it to you to fill it in if you want. Right now tho my feeling is your take is--I'm not sure "fringe" or not--but seemingly emotionally and ideologically motivated. Would that be impossible? I am genuinely interested in what alternative takes you have, too, if you care to share?

throwaway290 3y ago
Stop with the sarcasm won't you? As I already said I finished the series and enjoyed it. It's quite good, well scripted and beautifully shot captivating TV. It's unfortunate that it is science fiction presented as science. If you want to find available facts, as opposed to a story, it will take you just a few minutes (I think I provided a link you can start with), less time than what you spend commenting here.
- keepamovin 3y ago
  No sarcasm there, man. What makes you say that? Anyway, nothing you have said contradicts anything in the series. It does express your ideological or emotional take, tho. I’m happy to reply here, otherwise i wouldn’t do it. It takes me no time. Let me take a stab at why you might be saying this: let me guess, you’re from East Asia or Russia (or both!), and Graham Hancock never paid meet adoration to your East Asian / Soviet centric view of the origin of civilization, right? In fact, Hancock, who you regard as a heretic, commits the punishable sin of not acknowledging the primacy and original origin of all Earth civilization in the cauldron of your unique little place in the world? In fact, his theories are coherent and dispute your worldview that “all under heaven” in fact first originated in China, Korea, Japan or Russia, am I right? Or just the fact that he suggests the origin of civilization was in "the West", is heretical enough, no? In short, Hancock is a insufferable betrayal of your Sovio/Sinocentric worldview, and any validity must be denied! Just an idea, a thought based on your attitude here and your comment history. Let me know how close I get OK? I’m feeling like I got a whole in one. Let me know if it’s a hole in none, alright? :) I do wish you had responded to my questions directly tho :( Oh well! :) Have a good one! :)