We lost Keanu

I was torn between the use of misinformation and disinformation. And comments on Lemmy are often speaking into a void, so I honestly did not think it would matter. I appreciate the clarification and agree that misinformation is more appropriate. But agree that falling for misinformation leads to disinformation.

At this point I'm sure there's been numerous people who have written in to correct him and advise him of the inaccuracies. I'm sure by now he's had enough time to properly investigate the facts and why the modern consensus is the modern consensus, because of the available evidence.

At this point its wilful ignorance of the facts and he's just doing this for the viewership, pay and 15mins of fame

So I call it disinformation.

Thank you for taking the time to write this out so eloquently.

Plato did not suggest ancient Atlantis existed. He was very clear that he was illustrating a hypothetical "great society" to discuss his views on effective and beneficent government.

When he discussed it sinking it was a divine punishment from the gods of Olympus because they had strayed from a righteous path. All of it is meant to be a parable.

It’s damaging because it adds doubt to any kind of scientific consensus.

“They” don’t want you to know that vaccines are dangerous.

“They” are only pushing chemo for big pharma.

“They” don’t want to admit that this was where ancient civilizations had some global empire.

It’s the same kind of attitude of “fantastical claim you can believe if you just dismiss all the evidence that you don’t like”

And that is very damaging because it further erodes understanding of the scientific method.

Anyone else remember when Joe Rogan was a harmless comedian?

The belief in the existence of a super-race (or whatever term Hancock uses) is dubious. While the idea on its own may seem harmless, it opens the door for racist idealogies. Everything has to be taken in context, and crackpot archeologists have been making this argument for ages in order to justify later arguments for eugenics.

I know it may appear that Hancock questioning the established historians and "big archeology" is above suspicion, but it is done in an unambiguously dishonest way. He refuses to acknowledge sound logical arguments put forth by multiple well-respected sources and hand waves things away as common sense. Essentially, he is frustrating because his arguments muddy the waters of logical discussions and introduce doubt in a community that certainly does not get paid enough for this shit.

Ah! The old Lemmaroo!

Ok, but who's the scientist bloke and what's he claiming?

Earth is flat? Aliens walk among us? Billionaires are lizards?

Ha, now I wanna watch it. Might be fun if you treat it like it's Cunk on Earth.

reverse nepobaby? How does that work? His kid gave birth to him and then hired him?

what is reverse nepotism?

the show is fun to watch if you realize it's just him tearing through the strawmen he set up for himself

Damn minions of orthodoxy, I'll keep my cells from getting bored and then what?

Don't have a boat in this race, but banning him from otherwise open historical sites because they don't like his ideas is not scientific, but more like the mediaeval Catholic church.

Science is full of bigoted thinking as any other discipline. If you don't already know this, you have never met a scientist.

Having said all that, it is a silly idea, but I enjoy the incidental geology that he employs to illustrate his argument. Not that I buy into the argument itself.

Terrible at running dinosaur parks tho

I used to love this kind of conspiracy stuff as a kid. It was like X Files. Then I learned people took it for real 😒 and it did actual harm to real academic work

My fav media is archeological documentaries and my most hated media is archeological documentaries(the ones like these that have 0 content and 99% yap)

I thought, growing in Russia, that such things are not possible in the West. (They were and to some extent still are quite popular here, though, with Fomenko and thousand other freaks.)

Do I look stupid?

He’s successfully siphoned money away from serious archeological work

Ho's gotta eat, too.

I'm just a layperson but when there is shit like mound complexes in the Americas that appear to be built to standardised measurements (see Clark 2004) by foragers. Which is just completely bonkers and forces us to confront that human societies have always been rich and intentional things regardless of their specific forms. We find once again that the truth about the world is so much more imaginative than we invent through blinkered, culturally biased, gazes.

miniminuteman, the funny milo rossi guy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iCIZQX9i1A

audio is fucking ass, unfortunately that's throughout the whole series, good watch despite this painful blunder though.

Used to be some really good shit on there that would teach you interesting history.

It was even better when it was just the WWII channel 24/7.

I think they're talking about the people who made Midnight Rescue.

Oh god, I saw something like this on Netflix. Every third sentence was about the bad mainstream archeology.

Tom Cruise is a great example of love the actor, hate the man.

Tom Cruise is a mid-tier actor given top-tier roles.

Exactly, it's just an "evolution" of the whole White Saviour bit they love so much.

On the flip side, there was an article on the BBC website around a year ago. Basically the article was explaining how archeologists had no idea how the ancient folk made Stonehenge so accurately plumb and level, and how they've been experimenting for aaaages trying to figure it out....
Now, I'm a stonemason. And I can tell you exactly what they probably did, but the Big Brain people don't like to ask people who work trades. (Or maybe they are just asking the wrong ones)
If you have figured out rope or string, and you have access to wood and a few stones, then it's incredibly easy to level off an area, to make an accurate circle, and to make the tops of all the standing stones level and the uprights plumb.

A basic plumb-bob is incredibly easy to make, in this instance we would use as straight a piece of wood as we can find, a length of rope tied to the middle of it, with a stone tied to the other end. For the uprights, get straight logs as long as each stone going into the ground. Now we have our standing stone analogues, and a plumb-bob. Dig the holes for the uprights, plop the logs down in the hole, if the plumb-bob isn't pointing straight down between the two logs, one side has to go down.

There, mystery solved. Thanks for coming to my TEDtalk.

also note that Atlantis is part of the origin myth for nazis. so this usually is just code for "the white master race taught the brown and black savages how to do civilization", conscious or not.

Ok but that's the thing I'm trying to get at. 15k years ago there was no such thing as Europeans. There weren't Africans or Asians or Indians. Thats so far back that there are zero ties to modern races. It's meaningless to try and connect them. It cant belittle one group of people while praising the intellect of another because human migration has made any resemblance to modern humanity from that far back a moot point. Any races from that long ago no longer exist.

Not yet. But let it be known that it was built by a extraterrestrial Inuit tribe in trade for the finest Italian blubber.

The colosseum isn't 10000 years old

Thing is, he's not really pointing an unexplained mystery.

We know 90% of about how a lot of these sites were built and a good chunk of their history. Some of the older/more recently discovered ones such as Gobleki Tepe, obviously less but still a fair bit. Claiming that Mesoamerican and Asian megalith sites are aliens/Atlanteans isn't really helping work out that last 10%.

Pointing at what science has proven again and again to be a natural rock formation 25m under the water and claiming it's the remains of Atlantean civilisation doesn't advance much either, after all it's been proven wrong before.

Meanwhile, ever since Europe was disproven to be the birthplace of modern humans in the 19th and early 20th centuries, people have suddenly been coming up with all sorts of reasons why non-White folks sites weren't made by locals.

I will give Hancock credit that I don't think he is actively racist, as he does correct himself when he implies that the locals wouldn't have been able to do things like stack rocks.

You're ignoring the interesting questions he asks in favor of the easy to hand wave away stuff and that's exactly what I'm talking about. To be clear, I'm not defending the things he says. I'm pointing out that his more outlandish theories gain more traction because the scientific community doesn't lean into the softballs and use them as an opportunity to both teach people actual science and understand what different groups of people want to learn about.

Ignore the star / soul example and focus in on the possibility of an ancient and semi advanced civilization existing. That's the part grabbing people's attention. Talk about what that would change about our understanding of the past and what sort of evidence we would expect to find if it were true. Showcase people working in related fields and what they have found already. Propose other locations we could look for that evidence and discuss other topics we could study while looking for that evidence in those places. Engage the curiosity, don't dismiss it. Anyone listening to Graham is likely uneducated in science but interested in it so use that as your jumping off point instead of judging those people for not being farther down the path.

May I ask for an interesting archeological piece/story?