fhjdjksksksks6

5 ms·

1.
by fhjdjksksksks6 6y ago
> the fix is to respectfully provide correct information and explain the problems with false claims. This is precisely what I did in the post you are referring to. > If you know more, that's wonderful, but please share what you k
2.
by fhjdjksksksks6 6y ago
> when we use the word "civilization", we are definitively talking about cities. Associating onset of civilization with 3-4000 BCE is a conclusion from present evidence, not a definition, and would need to be changed in the fac
3.
by fhjdjksksksks6 6y ago
> It's admirable, an open exchange of ideas with people you disagree with. Just like we're doing here! Good on us. Well there are disagreements stemming from different perspectives or opinions, and then there is the distinction
4.
by fhjdjksksksks6 6y ago
You clearly lack background knowledge about contemporary archaeological understanding of the palaeolithic and neolithic periods in southwest asia and anatolia. First off, referring to 'civilizations' as basic entities or units of
5.
by fhjdjksksksks6 6y ago
Klaus Schmidt, who died around 5 years ago, was the director of excavations at Gobleki Tepe. I highly doubt he would have allowed Hancock to perverse the legitimacy of his work. To read more about how Gobleki Tepe has been abused by pseudoa
6.
by fhjdjksksksks6 6y ago
Graham Hancock is a fraud. We certainly underestimate the ingenuity of past peoples, but the way that Hancock frames this discourse is full of shit. Bad Archaeology is a great resource that explains why a wide array of pseudoarchaeological