what's wrong? why are they mad? is this trying to pass itself as the ultimate source of truth in the topic, denying all other theories, or is simply presenting a theory that you don't have to accept if you don't want to?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
>why are they mad
Because on the off chance there's any merit to his hypothesis it deals a crippling blow to the authority of established institutions. It undermines all sorts of standing models for who we are and how we got here and all established narratives of softer sciences which base their conclusions on the upstream consensuses would likewise be ripe to be called into question if not outright upended. It's the same reason the entire concept of catastrophism is so hotly contested. It implies we don't know for sure nearly as much as we've assumed we do.
It's all bullshit
>a global-reaching civilization that conveniently built everything just on the coastline and nowhere else and it all just conveniently disappeared too
>there's a stone carving of a snake in one temple on one side of the planet .... and a stone carving of a snake in another temple on the other side, also thousands of years apart!! rock solid proof
>it's impossible for these ancient people to figure things out on their own... they had to be taught everything by an even more ancient people that .... figured it out on their own
>global civ that never mind any metals except moved giant slabs of stone with their mind, oh yeah they also shaped stone with their mind to make it fit... funny how they didn't teach that to anyone
>Strawmanning
The veracity of the claims ultimately don't matter. I'm only describing why institutionalists respond the way they do. They will respond the same way regardless of the truth of the claim right up until the point at which public support flips and they can no longer get away with ignoring and denigrating it without addressing it on the merits. All paradigm shifts follow this pattern.
>The veracity of the claims ultimately don't matter
Lol
he's right
unless youre below the necessary iq level to engage with hypotheticals
That's not how paradigm shifts happen. The public wasn't consulted on geocentrism and heliocentrism, it was almost entirely a matter resolved between scholars. Nobody is ignoring Hanwiener either, he's received a hell of a lot of buzz from his program and academics have responded to his claims directly which is why he even did a debate with one.
>The public wasn't consulted on geocentrism and heliocentrism
When I say the public I don't mean the total population in aggregate. I mean those with the power and means to influence narratives, like say the church during that era, outside of the scholarly academic (in the purest sense of the term) community which is actually properly engaging with the hypothesis rather than outsiders running balancing tests for social or societal control and influence.
It’s the “all these civilizations built pyramids, they must have been connected” argument for me, which I’ve heard too many times from normie friends. The fact that a pyramid is the only way to build something really tall if you’re a ancient society with little to no engineering knowledge and cannot into free-standing tall structures hasn’t even occurred to them.
Our entire social order is clearly an ignorant and dogmatic one that likes to pretend it is open, free and all knowing which it couldn't be anymore not true. I think the rest of this century is going to be centered around this major issue, maybe a new Enlightenment. We are only getting started with our knowledge, we truly know nothing.
>Our entire social order is clearly an ignorant and dogmatic one that likes to pretend it is open, free
This. It's especially amusing when major scientific theories have been repeatedly proven wrong in the last 20 years. We know next to nothing and basically all of our important scientific theories have huge unexplained problems.
One issue with fields like anthropology, archeology, and the such is if something doesn't fit the puzzle exactly like its supposed to fit, it can easily be locked away and buried if not destroyed and it is a real issue.
Good example is the out of Africa origin theory for all humans, any evidence that goes against it no matter how small is shat on and buried hard and fast.
This. If it turns out to be true they want to be the ones to tell at a time of their choosing for strategic purposes. They hate free speech because it challenges their authority
Most other theories don't have access to a billion dollar entertainment platform to market themselves nor do they try to abuse sensationalism for mass appeal.
People are angry because it's another example of misinformation exacerbated by technology which tries to enter into the public consciousness without critical examination. It also casts detractors in a terrible light, presenting professionals as dismissive and dogmatic, which is part of a greater emerging skepticism for established institutions. Obviously, academia isn't perfect, but it's not flawed because it won't pay attention to outlandish theories and even this is usually a false narrative. If academia is flawed, it's because moneyed interests disproportionately determine what theories can be pursued and who receives funding and this documentary is a great example of that phenomenon at play. Someone who has been widely ignored gets to force their agenda to the fore because they have wealthy supporters.
This is just repackaged Daniken. This kind of appealing theorizing about ancient secrets has been peddled through modern media for a long time.
And every successive generation of them just fine tune it to sound appealing but not too crazy. Just crazy enough to get their books sold.
>it's another example of misinformation exacerbated by technology which tries to enter into the public consciousness without critical examination.
Funny how you homosexuals only seem to care about that in certain, very specific cases.
There was no such uproar when the same methods were being used to spread misinformation like Rittenhouse havkng shot "random black people", or Ivermectin being "Horse medicine" or some shit.
Leftists always like to say "there are no bad tactics only bad targets." They can never be trusted.
This is the upending of an entire field which has received worldwide input. Its consequences span the globe. It's not "very specific", which would be random episodes of American political insanity, it's fundamental.
You getting triggered by one specific Netflix show is about as "very specific" as it gets, homosexual.
Because I can contextualize it as one more brick in the pseudoscientific wall which plays on sensationalism and aesthetics. I'm triggered by the wall itself not the brick.
And the same argument can't be made about the "random episodes of American political insanity" you JUST dismissed?
Think before you fricking talk, homosexual. Quit embarrassing yourself.
I'm not American you fricking tool, why would I need to comment on issues in your country's political system? Undermining a field of research that encompasses the globe is obviously going to attract more concern than a localized event in YOUR country. If those events were accompanied with deliberate misinformation propelled by moneyed interests then yes, I'm obviously against it, but I don't fricking know about them because I care more about the political events where I live.
>oh so murder is wrong huh? how come you never commented on the killing of Altantuya Shaariibuu, yeah, got you there didnt i
The system is made up of liars and hypocrites
>Most other theories don't have access to a billion dollar entertainment platform to market themselves
Black person, WHAT?
I'm sorry, how many Documentaries (and "Documentaries") are made using Establishment viewpoints?
I've never seen Gunung Padang shown in a mainstream documentary, let alone one with funding to rival Hanwiener's. Even being generous, I looked it up and could only find an episode of Ancient Aliens.
So where's the room for the established opinion to counterargue? They're entirely confined to scientific journals and maybe, if they're lucky, one or two of them will be asked to write a piece in some pop science magazine to be read by all of 5,000 people.
There used to be an entire series on the history channel about how aliens built everything
>a greater emerging skepticism for established institutions
This is a good thing.
>presenting professionals as dismissive and dogmatic
They are and have proven to be, over and over again, in this and many other fields of study.
>which is part of a greater emerging skepticism for established institutions
I love how you say this like it's a bad thing. God forbid people question the institutions. Especially when they've repeatedly churned-out corruption & nonsense for 10+ years now.
I'm sick of this societal notion that "scientists" or "researchers" are infallible, unquestionable gods, when in reality they're just as prone to corruption, bias, irrationality, dogma and greed as literally ANY other human. Thankfully the "experts" themselves are the ones that are bringing that age to a rapid end.
>God forbid people question the institutions.
There are valid reasons to question existing institutions but undermining them because they don't support random pseudoscience or because they don't commit millions of dollars and the careers of multiple lives to investigate them isn't one.
>I'm sick of this societal notion that "scientists" or "researchers" are infallible, unquestionable gods
Scientists come under flak all the time for valid reasons. Scientific articles are some of the first to comment on scientists fabricating data or misleading readers:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/controversial-physicist-faces-mounting-accusations-of-scientific-misconduct1/
The grounds for criticism here in the documentary are vague and purposefully so. It's the same thing with the electric universe theory in cosmology or any other pseudoscience. They always always always insist on the same narrative that the established community is just too dogmatic to listen, which they never bother to prove.
>heh look how well I blend in
>Most other theories don't have access to a billion dollar entertainment platform to market themselves nor do they try to abuse sensationalism for mass appeal.
????
top secret marketing ploy to make him look like the underdog who is secretly hiding forbidden (and thus appealing) knowledge. the professional academics are all on it and are taking a cut, creating an imaginary and gay conflict that casts them as conspiracy-squashing heroes now has normies interested in through this drama. even the bizarre accusations of him being a racist by third-party critics latching onto the scheme, intended to make you go "wait, his critics are enormous homosexuals, now I HAVE to check out what he's selling!"
I mean, it certainly worked on me.
More pop science dumbification making people anti-science and looking for witch doctors and snake oil salesmen to get their fix of "secret info"
ah sweet schizo thread..the earth is flat btw
Honestly when you look at a lot of ancient history something does seem out of place and there a lot of things seem like hints to an earlier civilization.
We think we know a lot but its more like we have just hit the surface of things literally. there may have been entire civilizations of major importance lost to time. People used to think Troy was a myth now its a fact, Atlantis will probably be the same.
It has nothing to do with how right or wrong he is and is 100% because he's challenging the Establishment, i.e. the Authority Democrats worship.
The Establishment and Academia fully endorses AND pays Race-Grifter Revisionists and other absolute crackpots but you'll never see targeted waves of hate-articles like this made about them.
I remember seeing a few threads posted recently where it seemed like 90% of the posts were simultaneously very well informed on specific details about graham hanwiener and vitriolically opposed to everything about him. They all had a similar writing style too and kinda just slid off the board without even getting a reaction by people who would agree with graham hanwiener. It's very weird
Yeah it’s weird when a bunch of experts on very specific topics show up out of nowhere and don’t type like anons.
When are we going to get more conspiracy theory concept kino? If nothing else they have original and interesting premises for a variety of media.
I'm going to be blunt.
real history is boring as frick unless you get paid to do it, even then it probably still is.
it's that simple.
keep on keeping on greayham. loved how zahi snapped out.
graham got destroyed on the recent jre i dont know how much I believe
QRD?
he had a debate with an archaeologist on joe rogan and god destroyed his only arguments where that people where after him and he went on vacation and scuba dived to a place that looked like an ancient structure once.
its 4 hour 30 minute podcast but you dont have to watch it all to get the gist
oh that dribble guy? the guy that digs for food lel.
>My research focuses on the topic of food in ancient Greece. In fact, I mostly study food trash in the form of animal bones.
https://faculty-directory.dartmouth.edu/flint-dibble
What's wrong with his line of work?
How else would we know how ancient peoples ate?
>How else would we know how ancient peoples ate?
Because it is the same shit all people ate up until very recently? I mean, what would count as a breakthrough here, finding McNuggets? People are very smart animals and just like any animal, they ate things close to them that didn't make them sick ... including, sometimes, other people. There you go bro, no need for Phd in ancient foods now.
Rogan hosted a debate between some historian and Graham. Graham made an absolute ass of himself and looked like a moron. Even so it seems as if the majority of viewers ended up siding with him in the end because the guy he was debating was so unbelievably insufferable. He's the posterchild for smarmy, smug, knowitall, dad's suit wearing, fedora tipping science fans everywhere. He couldn't have looked or behaved less professionally if he tried so he all but drove the audience into Graham's arms. The whole thing was an embarrassment for both sides but even a flustered borderline unhinged Hanwiener ended up being the more likable party.
>He's the posterchild for smarmy, smug, knowitall, dad's suit wearing, fedora tipping science fans everywhere.
The only people going into archeology nowadays are archetypical neckbearded redditors, I'm on his side of the argument but frick the guy reminded me of so many self-important academia knobheads I've met.
There's some evidence for a cataclysm but it's sparse. The incas definitely didn't build any of the megalithic sites they're credited with it was some other unknown pre-inca civilization. The temple at baalbek is built on a much older foundation of unknown origins. Wasn't there some ancient megalithic sea-dock/wharf on top of a mountain somewhere?
Caral Supe is insane
They are afraid people will learn about the Finno-Korean Hyperwar
I don't even know anymore history bros
They hated him because he spoke the truth.
You aren’t pagan, israelite.
Destroying history is only good when they do it.
>why would israelites hate something that shows pre-israelite times as more advanced than israelite times?