All the arguments in the comments make a novice think none of any of these theories are true, thats a tough group of people to get a leg up on, ha ha, makes me feel glad im a truck driver lol.
Actually it's an argument between giant heads, who is right is not important only who came out of the argument victorious thus the greater heads rule so what did we learn? Oh, ok.
Based on materials provided here one can readily get a hunch that they are trustworthy. It's fascinating and important to learn the detailed evolution processes of our home.
This is an important time capsule of vintage geological and palaeontological sciences and nicely summarised quite a lot of concepts. It's a charming one, with plenty of too-the-point explanations. It is indeed, as the video description reads, a historically significant documentary. From the perspective of a palaeontologist with a lot of interest in the history of the subject, and it's numerous related fields, the documentary touches upon and mentions quite a lot of aspects of how the science was done. Having grown up in the 1990's with documentaries and books heavily influenced by the stratified legacies of the geoscience and palaeontology of the 1950's to 1980's prior, especially, there is a lot of nostalgia in this. Things you pick up in terms of noticing the changing nature of the subjects, the old ideas, the past generations pushing things forward at the forefront of their eras. It's nice to see. They were ahead of their time in a lot of ways and it's a style of documentary which I have always preferred to the often more sensationalist offerings of the 2000's to 2020's. Horizon began to become a lot more sensationalist in the last couple of decades, and it had a habit of leaning into the loud music. There is something refreshing about the old school documentary style. There is an honesty and sincerity to it which isn't always seen in more recent documentaries. Don't get me wrong, plenty of modern ones are fine. It's just a matter of finding the ones that don't just happen to have about 15 minutes of content uncharitably spread over 60 minutes. The begging the question stuff and drawing out pretty basic revelations to the general audience, happen in favour, more often, to treating the audience like it has the literacy and educational standards to handle things without hand holding. Modern television executives would probably look down their noses at this style of documentary, basically dismiss it as being (allegedly) too boring or stilted for the general audience and it's attention span. And these days, they might have a vague sort of point due to the way things have changed. All the same, it's all subjective. If you know what you're looking for in the quality of an old documentary like this, there is so much to appreciate from this. It has so much of the old nostalgia, while preserving what was an up and coming new wave of how science was presented on television (and the new and exciting work being done in geology at the time) The 1970's in general are so special in terms of the development of modern science communication in Geology and Palaeontology. Decades and in some cases, centuries of changing principles, reaching this uncanny crossroads in 20th century science and scientific communication. It is before my time but just because I consider the documentary old now, doesn't mean I miss the fact that it was a very cutting edge way of looking at things in it's day. They were really changing things up. It looks retro now as all things do when they age. Again, though, if you know what you're looking for in how things changed in documentaries and scientific presentations, the charm of this one is unmistakeable. It reminds me strongly of a Dinosaur book I was given as a child during the 1990's, which was absolutely packed to the rafters with what was then, the most up to date palaeontology regarding Dinosaurs and the Mesozoic Era in general. The exhaustive photographs, the many questions and answers pages, the high quality prints of what was then very high quality photography and stills of fossil specimens, gathered at some great difficulty by the makers of the book. So much of a range of 1970's vintage to the then more modern early 1990's palaeontology. Some of the art was inspired by 1960's reconstructions. Some looked distinctly 1970's or 1980's. The sheer amount of it mixed together was a bit wild. Even as a kid you could tell that a lot of the art was more or less retro stuff padding out the pages because it would have been a challenge to fill so many hundreds and hundreds of pages. Some of the reconstructions were right up to date as of the 1990's. I still have that book to this day. It gives me the same feeling that this documentary does. Not just that the past met the future, but that the process of the geological and palaeontological sciences had really come of age by the 1970's and that it could record itself and it's methods more meticulously than ever before, in printed form and documentary form. There were photos of people in white lab coats working in the 1970's and 1980's, making museum exhibits and preparing fossils for study, with large text boxes explaining what they were doing. You could see their methods and so much of the science had come a long way. There'd be comparisons of Ankylosaurs like _Euoplocephalus tutus_ to battle tanks and _Triceratops horridus_ to charging knights. There'd be charts showing paintings of different Dinosaur teeth and diagrams of the serrations and which food they'd eat. There'd film reels with panels of Dinosaur palaeoart and textboxes next to them explaining what each panel is showing, winding across double pages. There'd be purple 3D photo prints and red and blue 3D art prints which stood out a bit with the _Tyrannosaurus rex_ shaped red and blue 3D lens, cardboard glasses, that came with the book. It was the big book compendium of a similar series which was collected as a magazine, with species fact files and lots of 'behind the scenes' double spreads on different aspects of geoscience and palaeontology. It is one of the things that inspired me to become a palaeontologist (that book, not this documentary) Dinosaur related palaeomedia was mostly responsible for the rest (e.g. Walking With Dinosaurs, 1999) The book shows it's age now in spite of my best efforts to look after it. But it was used so much and moved around so often, it was worn out a bit as a kid, before I learnt how to look after books properly. This documentary really does feel like a multidisciplinary time capsule. The book did too. A sincere combination of dozens and dozens of people's contributions and achievements, with a lot of them having been the result of some very new lines of thinking. For instance, the inimitable Dr Robert Bakker had been changing the ways we think about some Dinosaurs, especially the Theropods, with his 'Dinosaur Heresies' observations. Of course, slightly older work by his own mentor had played into this massively as well (Ostrom) This is just one of many examples. What I am getting at, in the palaeontological world, is what Bakker himself dubbed, 'the Dinosaur Renaissance'. In geological terms, there was broader shift in how plate tectonics and crustal geology was being educated to the public and arguably in how widely it was being accepted. The Cold War had inevitably given a basis to many changing perceptions of the oceanic basins of the world. Sea floor mapping, done at some frantic pace for good (albeit macabre) reason, between the Cold War superpowers, causing a surge in discoveries and implications regarding how the continental and oceanic crust was being formed. Theories became better understood and the pioneers, as shown in this documentary, were at the forefront of changing how this would be communicated to the general public. Old theories still lingered and new ones blossomed in what may only be considered to be a flowering of the garden of geoscience. The 1970's were an undeniably special time in this historical record; and it should importantly inform how we should remember the entire process. While it is very true that earlier decades had seen major step changes and leaps forward in our understanding of geology and palaeontology, amongst other fields related to this, and that they had their own part in the story just as important, there was something particularly, transitional, about the 1970's. I feel I could say the same about the 1990's and 2000's, thanks to the rise of the internet in how it was beginning to be a massive contribution to how science was done and how publications were more widely distributed. More and more things were going digital. But still. Even in a time (1970's) when computing power was so relatively low, the landmark achievements they were making had really, begun to turn the tide. It feels like decades of planning and discovery had begun to amass into something more wizened by it's own age. It's easy to forget that as a science, palaeontology was still young at only about a century old in the early 20th century. Proto-palaeontology fields were a thing of course. But in terms of the formal stuff, it's not that old. Geology more broadly has had a longer history, though again, it's not _that_ old and in terms of the televised history of geology, that's of course just as limited historically as anything else. One of things I love about this documentary is that you can still see the earnest practical models and creative ways of conveying information that would probably be rendered in cheap and cheerful cgi or more expensive software today. And I like a blend of both worlds in that regard. It has it's place. It'd be interesting to see how many could even make some of these practical models now off the cuff. They had to get their hands dirty and go out and make stuff back then and I really like it. It should be a skill a lot of geoscientists and evolutionary scientists can still do, if nothing else, for lecture purposes. There is something in it. Obviously, when this documentary came out, it was at the dawn of a new age of discoveries and the coming of age of a lot of much older achievements which had provided it's deep foundations.
Loved every second of this. I remember being about 8 or 9 years old (1989) and learning about plate tectonics. It was basically a brand new science at that time.
I was taught geophysics by Fred Vine when I was an undergraduate in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia from 1968 to 1970. What a privilege!
This was produced in 1965. This would have been presented in 16mm film to high school science classes. Students were actually interested in science at that time. Note the lack of context at that time such as the UN climate change propaganda added above.
YAH. WELL!! We've been to the moon. On many many occasions. SO I guess it's NOT considered "fanciful" fruitcake. Now get someone straight who speaks REAL English.
It might be dated as heck, but my GOD what an awesome doc from “back in the day.” How quaint and delightful to see these Geologists go nuts over information that was novel at the time but is taken for granted today. I like what must have been the earliest portrayal of plate tectonics by way of computer animation (roughly 11:45 to 12:45).
For the most part plate tectonics is BS. The planet is growing size more like a wart, the continets are splitting apart. There are NO continets floating around on a sea of lava, crashing into eachother. Upheaval is caused by internal gravity created through spin. It's direction points outward.
Living in BC🇨🇦 Canada (born just south of the '64 Alaska quake), the Ring of Fire is a known fact of past and future life. I find it fascinating to see how exploration and knowledge grew so recently.
Very impressed that this documentary takes the concept of expanding Earth seriously, as did most of these scientists at the time. I think the evidence for expansion tectonics is even greater today.
Thank you for posting this! My dad had recorded this from TV onto Betamax, when he was younger than I am now. I don't have the $ to convert all of the tapes, so I appreciate still being able to see this series.
T was not Wagoner in 1908 but Snider-Pellegrini in 1859 who originally proposed a serious plate tectonic theory but something else was more in vogue that year
Wonderful. Imagine even with these resources still believing the earth is flat, and denying evolution, space travel, being blindly aggressively religious etc etc. there’s absolutely no excuse
I'm very interested in geology and have studied the subject a lot, and still stayed glued to the screen the whole time. This is the kind of excellent documentary I love to watch - focusing on facts and explaining in creative and pedagogic ways. And now I want a globe where the continents can be moved around. 😊
Once we could pan out on the earth and see it from a distance the amazing ancient maps became much more understandable. It's so frightening that there are still human beings that have had the benefit of growing and living societies that understand science, believe the earth is flat or only 4000 years old.
It's so sad that ignorance and greed now replace intelligence and logic. I think of the 2011 Japan earthquake, tsunami and, most importantly, the liquefaction that destroyed 19,000 homes. It's the most idiotic thing I've ever seen. They're using landfill waste as filler to build more land on the ocean. Hence the "Black Tsunami" and black liquefaction taking place. Not to mention the fact they completely ignore the Japan Median Tectonic Line. They're literally killing people and it makes me so mad. WHY?
Love watching this, I remember 1st grade looking at the pull-down map and seeing the connections. The Nuns would have none of it (1966). My sons had a much better start! I hope we will be here to ski the new mountains🤔
Yes I read about it in National Geographic magazine as a boy and loved to listen to this presentation once again. Our beautiful planet is very old indeed.
Thank you , one note on the 06' san Francisco Quake .As they had no water to fight the fires , Many of the collasping building shown and damage was do to the Army Corp of Engineers blowing up buildings trying to make a fire break but actually caused it to spread more. I think it was in 1846 an earthquake caused the ground to rise around 150 feet at the south end of lake Merced i in South West San Francisco and were Colma creek used to empty into the Pacific.
elitist hogwash. plate techtonics was apparant to all but the blind the day the opposing coasts of Africa and South America were first accurately mapped.
You clearly do not comprehend the very nature of science. An idea without experimental evidence and without a proven mechanism remains merely anecdotal. It was obvious to everyone, for thousands of years, that the Moon and the Sun rotated about the Earth... wasn't it? But, hey, Wegener also did not understand the strictures of science. That is why he was laughed at.
When my late mother (b. 1927, d. 2023) was in high school she openly spoke in class that the continents could almost fit together like a jigsaw puzzle. The teacher and other students said that was wrong, how could they move? This would have been the early 40s. She was delighted when continental drift started showing up n our textbooks.
I was told about it in school in the middle of the 1950s. It all made perfect sense, and I was astonished to learn later that it wasn't an accepted theory until quite a few years later.
no, I think the tape or record damaged and this is a semi-recovered/restored transfer. I see film debris and the audio artifacting sounds similar to the live "dialog+" on my high end studio/gaming soundcard. my dad had a VHS tape of it from the 80s. it was far less bad than this I remember it was meant to be eerie and tantalizing to fill you with a sense of wonder but this is just kind of warped and digitally messed with to recover the voice over in high clarity.
At 39:33 is before Mount Saint Helens exploded. My thumbnail is the ridge between Mt. Baker & Mt. Shuksan where I bicycled 22 times from the Pacific coast back in the day.
In 5th grade, my Portland, OR elementary teacher (Mrs. Powell), when asked by a student ‘why the Continents looked like a puzzle?,’ described that she ‘wasn’t allowed to teach us about the Theory of Continental Drift’..
@@jodywho6696 No “grooming,” just facts.. Facts withheld by our school board as they feared having to explain Plate Tectonics to the average ‘taxpayer’ 🙂
