Archaeologist Misleads TheThinkingAtheist on UFOs & Racism  

If it were thought out well enough it would be incorporated into academia.

Thanks Doug, always good to see you in the comments :)

"Facts don’t care about your feelings." - The person who popularized that saying and capitalized on it on the tubes is a prime example of somebody who took his personal, political feelings and presented them as facts for years and continues to do so. If you asked me who the top 10 worst ppl on the net are now, he would certainly be on that list. I hope you just ironically used the saying for shock value...

@@darijanr5704no I used that comment to show that calling scientific facts or statistical facts, racist or whatever else type of slur because it goes against what you feel the facts should be is a pathetic standpoint. It seems to be the common standpoint these days. It’s not a way to the truth and definitely not a way that could ever be used to solve any issues in the world.

Thanks, and yes I feel bad for poor science. It has people like this to represent it

I wasn't joking about a PhD proposal. There is so much we don't know. But I'm also aware that the extravagant hat community would treat me like shit and make sure I fail. But a little bit of funding could attract the most useful people who have always wanted to have a go. Experimental history, not archeology, and I'd stand a chance of actually doing experimental research. The corporate takeover of sites in Turkey is deeply saddening to all truth seekers. If my proposal is accepted, I think many people would come on board to test the ideas through experimentation and donkey work.

I'll respond to my own question. His motive, by his own admission, was to "rock the boat". What a shameless hypocrite. These guys are just jumping on the bandwagon to get views.

And not all megafauna hunting was done exclusively by males, some were a tribe wide activity. The purpose were food.

You’re right about the activism. I get the same feeling from many professional scientists now that I get from activist journalists. Far more focused on making sure you believe the ‘right’ thing than with genuinely searching for truth or understanding, much less encouraging questions. (Hell, with that description, you could just as easily call them religious conservatives.)

@@carijay Sounds like Disney proclaiming how they just want to piss off the Star Wars fans because they are mostly White males.

@@mgkrewson it’s actually the same script that was perfected by religions. They just replaced satan and non-believers with racism and white supremacists. So if you start having doubts, it isn’t the devil leading you astray, it’s your racism.

Exactly. I have to these days catch myself when I dismiss claims of sexual abuse or racism. Activists made me less sensitive to it and I now have to work to get my original reaction to it back.

@@bostjanhren2716 Yup me too. I actually catch myself too wanting to dismiss something that by all means is a pretty clear cut case. But as long as you are aware of it it shouldn't be a problem. It's just sad that it has come that far.

It's about teams and hashtags, not actual harm done to society or the people who live in it. Idealism vs Reality was the first paper I wrote in college. Just for English 101, but it was something I was looking at then, long before social media did *points at universe* this.

@@DeDunking Well given the fact of cancel culture I have to disagree. There surely is some correction now going on since it is a much more talked about issue but clearly those hashtags and movements do have some real world repercussions for people living in the real world. I'm reminded of the woman who can't find a job because a twitter mob made sure she would get fired after an off color joke on that platform. So there definitely are some serious consequences to society. Fortunately people are becoming more and more literate in spotting fake news and manipulation and I think you do good work pointing out hypocrisies wherever you see it. Only a few years back I still know most people were all doom and gloom. But even after the most fatal downfall comes an upswing. Correctional forces like you are very important. The problem I see is what the streamer Destiny (do you know him?) who is getting big now (recently had his Peterson debate) described as people wanting to belong to social circles and choosing their beliefs based on that. The problem is since the internet widened that circle dramatically you have to reduce is to a very few common denominators. That is why conformity pressure is so high nowadays. Moderates are becoming increasingly rare. You won't find for example a gun owner who also advocates for better gun control. There is an immense conformity pressure otherwise you are being kicked out of the community. By the way if you like debates I can only recommend Destiny's Israel/Palestine debates and streams. Learned a lot with him and he makes excellent content.

It's not just been over used its been weaponized. So now to mean anyone crying racism is to be ignored. It's a sorry pathetic way to hide truth to shut some people up and distort reality. So the first thing when someone claims racism I look to see what they are lying about.

I think they are sort of just trying to gatekeep. Like "Look at these guys they are racist. Only pay attention to us. We aren't racist, so what we say is inherently more reliable". They actually have some real issues in disproving some of the fringe theories, so they have to switch to these kinds of tactics because they can't just stick to the evidence. This entire game of "my opponent is a racist" is less and less effective as we're all tired of it, so I don't think it will be that hard to overcome. Seems like it's on its last legs as it is.

I know, I am here doing this cause it seems few others are... but I wish it was just sciencey stuff we were discussing. Hard to when it's racist to do so... I wish I knew where this is headed. I know what I want: More skeptical alternate historians and Less throwing out the baby with the bathwater from the skeptics.

@DeDunking Perhaps it might be better not to think of them in terms of "scientist, "academic"," or "archaeologists." I have noticed that they all have they same "talking points." Pseudo archaeologists and pseudo scientists bad. We are good. Alternative theories to the mainstream archaeological narrative are racist, and deny original people's heritage. We don't. We are good. People who promote Atlantean theories are racist, white supremacists, pseudo archaeologists and kooks. We don't believe in Atlantis. We are good. Etc, etc. They all say the same thing, the same "talking points". That's not an archeoogical , academic or scientific address, discussion or lecture. That's an on message political party. Period. My point is, when we see these people and hear what they say, we get annoyed with them on an individual basis. And we respond to them on an individual basis to set the record straight. And in doing that, it's difficult to win because just as you finished with Dibble, this guy hits you in the back of the head. Perhaps it might be more profitable to first identify the "political party" they belong to, and the traits and goals of that party, and then you can more effectively deal with the individual party members. Graham Hancock has been trying to identify the "party", but I don't think he has defined it enough. Anyway, just my thoughts. I hate the way archeology is going. There is so much good stuff we could be finding out....

​@@DeDunking Perhaps we are thinking of them, and dealing with them in the wrong way. I have noticed these guys all have the same "talking points." People who promote alternative theories to the mainstream narrative are pseudo archaeologists and racists. We of the mainstream are good. Questioning timeline narratives is depriving indigenous peoples of their cultural heritage and denying them their history. We are good. People who believe Atlantis might be real are white supremacists, pseudo archaeologists and kooks. We don't believe in Atlantis. We are good. Etc, etc. That is not an academic or scientific discussion or lecture. That is a political party, strictly on message. When we listen to these guys, we get annoyed with them individually, and think of them as misguided individuals. I feel that's a mistake. It might be more profitable to first identify and define the political party they belong to (and that's not Democrats or Republicans. That's their own special party within archaeology), define the traits and goals of that party, and then deal with the individuals within the party. It would make it a lot easier to "dedunk" them. Graham Hancock sort of tried to deal with them in this way, but he hasn't quite nailed down the makeup of the beast. Anyway, just my thoughts for what they are worth. I hate where archaeology is going these days. There is so much good stuff we could be finding out....

@@DeDunking Lol.. I'm not going to try a third time. Reply keeps disappearing

Thanks, I appreciate that! I think he should keep his job, but he does need to think before he just spouts hogwash.

He is quite the creator, been flying under the radar for way too long.

@@DeDunking Yup. Almost no subscribers. I immediately subscribed. Such people are invaluable.

Thanks guys ! New video coming soon !

What is the name of the channel?

Happy to be wrong, but the denosivens pretty much dismisses it.

"Dedunked" is a bold claim, but there's good evidence that Out Of Africa is only part of the whole story.

@@elgringo7787 The Denosovins dismiss what?

@@Joe-sg9ll preach

@@Joe-sg9ll so the drill speed though jade, off the top of my head that's at least 6 on the mose scale and according to carbon dating it's like 70k years ago, but the amount of carbon 14 has never been stable ffs Look it up off the top of my head is at 60k rps

I should cover it one day in detail. All the angles, the rubble and ramps and... Thanks!

The math breaks down like this: There are 13,140,000 minutes in 25 years. Just the great pyramid (not all three on the main platueau mind you...just the biggest) has a conservative estimate of 2,500,000 stones. 13,140,000 minutes divided by 2,500,000 stones is one stone quarried, transported, shaped, and placed every 5.256 minutes. Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, rain or shine - for twenty-five years. The math isnt mathing.

@@jayess7682 Thank you have an upvote good sir. Yes that was the breakdown of the math I was alluding to. The 5 minute figure was that stuck with me. Yes it is crazy to believe that timeframe especially if you take into account that even if you assume that they were pumping those out every 5 minutes you would have to ignore the fact that they had to be transported first since they had to be quarried first. There are explanations for the surfaces though. You can achieve those incredibly precision by just rubbing those stones together since that is a technique we still use today to make granite slabs for kitchen for example. However doing that without machines would take a lot of time. Are you an engineer? i'm just curious.

@@EbonyPope By trade, yes and no. I take natural raw materials, and fabricate products from them. My tolerances are usually + - 1/16th of an inch; nothing crazy. But I have enough engineering basic knowledge to understand that precision work (like the barabar "caves", for example) require both precision tools and a knowledge base of precision technique. A whole lot of the confusion, in my opinion, comes from the fact that the people who are responsible for the dating of these sites are just not at all familiar enough with any actual, basic, work and/or logistics. As the old saying goes: "No task is impossible to the man who does not have to do the work himself."

@@jayess7682 May I know what your job is? Just curious. I'm actually a translator but I love history, archeology and everything having to with ancient cultures. I used to think that those people were primitive but when you read some of the roman graffitis including dick jokes you really get to realize that those people weren't much different from us. Sure they had different morals but they are homo sapiens after all. They had the same capacity for reasoning. Something even some scholars forget when talking about them. It's funny to see how like with the example of the roman graffitis things just repeat themselves over and over. Nothing is truly new. Something that Picasso I think said when seeing the impressive perspectively correct cave paintings in Lascaux. A whole lot of the confusion, in my opinion, comes from the fact that the people who are responsible for the dating of these sites are just not at all familiar enough with any actual, basic, work and/or logistics Yeah although I would say not all techniques are knows to us which leads us sometimes to believe it is n't possible without machines when in fact they are. Sometimes we just simply forgot how to do it because technology didn't require us to keep that knowledge alive. But I think in the example with the Great Pyramid that doesn't apply because no matter which awesome technique they employed the limiting factor is time. Although I'm convinced it was actually the very same population there who erected those buildings I don't think they could do it faster than we could theoretically now. That is just insane.

I think he is wrong about 90% of the time that he talks about race or genetics, and I don’t think he is racist but I do think that he makes it too easy for his critics to claim that he is sometimes.

Glad it was helpful, thanks!

Bill and JT?!?! *Dan's Triggering intensifies* :p

Gandhi and I both loved water. Himmler and you both loved water.

All of "Academia" is tainted by the mind virus. Sure, there are individuals who aren't, but as a whole it's rotted

Glad you enjoyed it, thanks for watching!

Enya, Only Time, ironically a timeless classic. Thanks!

@@DeDunking fcuk how couldn't I get that. Thank you

@@elgringo7787 No worries! I mean, Who can say where the day goes?

It wasn't even that long ago. The scientific community only began to change its mind on the idea of rocks falling from the sky back in the early 1900s. Before that, they thought it was preposterous, and that the simpletons who had seen it were only mistaken, merely seeing lightning strike the ground, and that the meteorite rocks were "already there on the ground". The book called The Book of the Damned by Charles Fort discusses all of the "damned"/"debunked" stuff that the scientific community back then (the book was written in 1919), and many even now, completely disregard because the peasant/peon people are too stupid to understand "the science". The book contains numerous accounts from scientists "debunking" stuff, and they use the same language, arguments, and logical fallacies that modern "authorities" do.

Enya - Only Time

This goes to what I think about a lot of these scientists - they don’t know anything outside of their hyper compartmentalised fields - they don’t know philosophy of science or history of science, they don’t know science of their forebears and haven’t read their original works (only summary articles), and assert things like pseudo science without even being able to define it coherently and in a way that won’t invalidate their own method.

Even his God of the gaps hypothesis, that magic explains less and less of the world is moronic - science by its very nature opens up more and more questions and hasn’t answered many fundamental questions posed by philosophers since antiquity, explaining consciousness, the origin of the universe, and comprehensive explanation of the fundamental laws of the universe, problems in quantum mechanics and grand cosmology, all are unexplained, untestable and unsolved and we aren’t even sure if we are able to solve these problems, or would even be able to gather the physical evidence to confirm any existing hypotheses (which puts a hole in the whole “science” and “pseudo science” demarcation because we accept theories that do not explain all the physical evidence, is contradicted by observed evidence, and contains hypotheses that cannot be tested.

Much appreciated, welcome!

I'm now more out of sync and an old kid on this block, and I swing two directions at least. Still a solid 98 degrees though. Fahrenheit of course.

at least theyre "professionals"

The base definition didn't, the base methodology didn't, but the methodology on a micro level changed immensely. We still learn about things that corrupt tests and in hindsight that's not scientific.

@@DeDunking Yeah sure. I responded before finishing the video. I think it would be good to differentiate that makes you less susceptible for attacks. You built a strong case and making it bulletproof is always good to prevent those criticisms. Was just something I caught.

He is considered by many to be the 1st scientist. As such, it is no surprise he didn't claim the moniker, as it hadn't been invented yet.

@@DeDunking It hadn't been invented and wouldn't be invented for 2000 years. There is no "sleight of hand" being performed to call him what he was (or, more accurately, not call him what he wasn't) and establish the delineation between what he did (philosophy) and what scientists do now (science).

Who? This isn't the type of comment that gets me to research anyone, it just makes me think "man some of the people who watch my vids are in need of some medication."

@@DeDunking good point, my apologies. Just a method to get noticed because nobody has covered this subject and it seems suspicious why. If you could please give it a look.

💯

I tagged him in this, but I didn't see anything besides a website otherwise, no Twitter or Instagram. I'm about to check his website for an email link and do this like it's 2002 :)

Oops, he has a Twitter, but my ancient butt had trouble finding it. Telling him now.

@@DeDunking Thanks for the reply - love the show

Methodology has drastically changed over the years. Study the history of science, in particular in regards to addressing pseudoscience.

@@DeDunking I would make the same recommendation to you, particularly Karl Popper and the philosophy of science (ontology, epistemology, etc.). Pseudoscience is not when you make a "mistake" in your scientific process, nor is it "science done with incorrect or insufficient data." It is applying the methodology of science to things that are unfalsifiable. If you can accept the difference I think you'll have an easier time grinding the axe you're grinding on this channel.

​@rcapracp3867 Saying aliens built the pyramids would certainly be falsifiable if one were to show historical evidence like a manuscript proving the Egyptians built the pyramids. Since it's falsifiable, by your definition, ancient aliens isn't pseudoscience.

​@@KEK-dd4iu The idea that aliens have had some as yet not understood involvement in the development of human technology is not inherently pseudoscientific. It can easily become pseudoscientific if you make the claim that every element of ancient Egyptian architectural technology with undocumented origins came from aliens. To be clear, it is just as pseudoscientific to claim that NONE of that technology has its origins in aliens. All we can say scientifically is that we do not yet have evidence for an extra terrestrial origin for the pyramids, while we do have evidence for a terrestrial one. As I mentioned, there's also a difference between "pseudoscience" and "bad science," such as neglecting evidence that 10,000 marks on a stone were carved with a chisel, to focus on the one strange mark on it which looks similar to ones left by a laser cutter, and therefore throw into question the origin of the carving. Someone who's a pseudoscientist would say "That mark is mysterious, therefore it must have been made by an alien." Someone who's merely a bad scientist would say "we just don't have enough evidence to say who made that mark." A good scientist would say "the stone was likely carved by conventional means, though opportunities for further study remain."

@@KEK-dd4iu The theory that aliens have had some as yet not understood impact on the development of human technology is not inherently pseudoscientific. It can easily become pseudoscientific if you were to say that all of the features of Egyptian ruins which we do not have a documented record of conventional architectural construction were created by aliens. To be clear, it would be just as pseudoscientific to say that NO Egyptian technologies have extra-terrestrial origins. As I mentioned, there is also a difference between "pseudoscience" and "bad science." Let's say we're examining a stone building block from one of the pyramids. Analysis finds 10,000 markings consistent with those left by a conventional metal chisel, and one marking that bears a strong resemblance to those made by a laser cutter. A pseudoscientist would say "because this stone has a mysterious marking on it, it must have been made by aliens." A bad scientist would say "there is not enough evidence to say one way or the other how this stone was carved." A good scientist would say "the stone's construction is consistent with conventional masonry technology of the time, but opportunities for further study remain."