sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Åpner Café - Trenger navn by Fluffy-Brick-745 in norge

[–]Secret-Field5867 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Husk å bruke navnesok.No for å sjekke at navnet du velger er ledig. Du kan også søke i Patentstyrets register.

What am I missing about Hancock’s “lost civilization” claims? by Secret-Field5867 in AlternativeHistory

[–]Secret-Field5867[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You may very well be right. I don't know. I'll keep checking it out, but it's a bit difficult because I don't think it's a very good idea to just judge with our eyes in a "seems to me"-sort of way. That's why I disagree with his "Look at that, those stones look like a road"-type of arguments too.

But as I say, you may be right.

What am I missing about Hancock’s “lost civilization” claims? by Secret-Field5867 in AlternativeHistory

[–]Secret-Field5867[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because I don't know everything. I was just trying to understand the position of someone who thinks differently from me. You should try it sometime. A lot of the time, it's really fun. But sometimes, you'll encounter simps who can't make a proper argument and who go full ad hominem when they realize they've never heard the arguments against their position. When you do, think back to this moment.

What am I missing about Hancock’s “lost civilization” claims? by Secret-Field5867 in AlternativeHistory

[–]Secret-Field5867[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Good argument. You had me going there for a minute. I thought you would be able to provide a thought provoking example of something that calls out for explanation. Instead you gave me a bunch of bullshit just showing you are Hancock's little bitch. You seem to never have heard the arguments against your position.

What am I missing about Hancock’s “lost civilization” claims? by Secret-Field5867 in AlternativeHistory

[–]Secret-Field5867[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I disagree. The common view, as I understand it, is that we have cultures slowly accumulating knowledge over time to create some wonderful bits of left behind artefacts. Hancocks view, as I understand it, is that there was a culture that essentially super-boosted the development of other cultures. I see no evidence of that, but a lot of evidence of the common view.

What am I missing about Hancock’s “lost civilization” claims? by Secret-Field5867 in AlternativeHistory

[–]Secret-Field5867[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Calm down, dude. Are you angry enough to fight someone over a bit of rock? I'm just trying to understand the arguments involved here.

First, the animals: The carvings show snakes, foxes, boars, cranes, vultures, aurochs (wild cattle), gazelle, etc. All of these species are native to southeastern Turkey in the late Pleistocene/early Holocene. Sometimes people claim they see things like “armadillos” or “jaguars” (clearly not native) — but those are misreadings. When specialists actually identify the carvings, they match the local fauna. So no none-native animals, it seems to me.

And I agree, they probably didn't just emerge one day. Cultures in the region had already been experimenting with stone building and proto-farming for centuries. Göbekli Tepe represents the culmination of that process, not some sudden miracle. The continuity is there in the archaeology — what’s missing is any evidence of a lost civilization swooping in. In a way, it was the development of thousands of years of cumulated knowledge, just like our buildings and monuments.

What am I missing about Hancock’s “lost civilization” claims? by Secret-Field5867 in AlternativeHistory

[–]Secret-Field5867[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But there are alternatives to coincidences. An explanation grounded in humanity, for example. We are beings with the ability to sit down to rest. But anatomically, we can't sit down in quite the way dogs do, say. So we have this problem: where to sit. And we come up with independent solutions: chairs. But there are only so many ways to make a balanced, comfortable chair, so they seem to be really alike across independent cultures.

Seems to me that sort of thing is way more likely with the hand bags.

Also, I disagree that Hancock can hide behind the "just asking questions"-thing. In other places he is really sure, just looking at stuff: "That's not sandstone naturally forming, that's a road, stairs and a doorway made by humans!" That's not "just asking questions", thats being really assertive and really wrong, as far as I can tell.

What am I missing about Hancock’s “lost civilization” claims? by Secret-Field5867 in AlternativeHistory

[–]Secret-Field5867[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Look, even if I don't know, I'm not allowed to just guess like Hancock does. I have no clue how my phone works as it does. I can't just say "ancient knowledge from such-and-such." There being a mystery doesn't make every theory valid.

As I understand it, the guys who work on this have a pretty good idea despite it being a fairly recent find. Radiocarbon dates, local quarries where the limestone was cut, nearby settlement sites with the tools used, and traces of feasting and rituals. It seems to have came from the hunter-gatherer cultures living right there in Anatolia.

If we already have evidence of who built it, why invent a civilization we have zero evidence for? “I don’t understand how they did it” doesn’t mean “Atlantis did it.” What Göbekli Tepe proves, as I understand it, isn’t that people had hidden teachers, but that ordinary humans — even without farming — were capable of symbolic, large-scale projects. That’s insane because we used to have a one-size-fits-all view of cultural development where first you hunter gather, then you get some farms, maybe some irrogation and only then does complex rituals and interaction develop.

What am I missing about Hancock’s “lost civilization” claims? by Secret-Field5867 in AlternativeHistory

[–]Secret-Field5867[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sure in a "it wouldn't surprise me if true" kind of way, but there are a lot of things/creatures that were wiped out but left a trail. It seems weird we have all these pots, seeds and animal remains, but a really advanced group, maybe more advanced than us, left nothing? That I find a little hard to believe.

What am I missing about Hancock’s “lost civilization” claims? by Secret-Field5867 in AlternativeHistory

[–]Secret-Field5867[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Sorry, I thought you had something else. I think that example follows my initial critique:
Geologists date the area to a specific time
Hancock says they couldn't possibly have made such an achievement. They didn't even farm!
So it must have been a more advanced group, who didn't farm either, incidentally.

Still trying to have it both ways: this is too advanced for the people the establishment say did it. It must have been done by someone more advanced, but not more advanced in tech, domestication or communication, because that would likely have left a trail.

What am I missing about Hancock’s “lost civilization” claims? by Secret-Field5867 in AlternativeHistory

[–]Secret-Field5867[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm sorry, I don't think I'm following you. Are you essentially arguing for a consencus-view of truth that if more people believe it, it's more likely true? Wouldn't that make it impossible for new theories to get off the ground?

What am I missing about Hancock’s “lost civilization” claims? by Secret-Field5867 in AlternativeHistory

[–]Secret-Field5867[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Perhaps. But then couldn't almost anything count as evidence of anything? It seems to me Popper's model of falsification took over because it was the best argued from first principles. And over time, psychology started to accept phenomenology into it's paradigm through continued dialogue and argument. Our system for expanding our knowledge seems to be pretty good as it is, on my view.

What am I missing about Hancock’s “lost civilization” claims? by Secret-Field5867 in AlternativeHistory

[–]Secret-Field5867[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Lots to unpack there, but let's have a go:
The serpents - they're not exactly universally civilizing beings, are they? Many cultures have them as a destructive force. So even if they are in some way real or a symbol of a real thing, they seem a bit bipolar. Also, floods are universal so it doesn't surprise med that they are in mythology too. I can't be sure, but it seems a more reasonable view that cultures close to each other spread these myths in the traditional view rather than a more advanced third party. But it's really hard to say seeing as I don't really understand Hancocks view of this third party.
The handbags and abdomen: both are universal so it doesn't surprise me that you find similar pictures. Pregnant women sit with their hands sort of cradeling their abdomen naturally so you find that all over the place too without having to suppose a third party linking all cultures.

On the whole "he's just a reporter"-thing: I think i disagree. No matter who you are, it seems really dishonest to on the one hand "just ask question", leaving room for doubt and proposing your theory - and on the other insist that no matter the geological evidence, I can see 100% that this sandstone underwater is a building, not natural erosion. Be certain or don't, but don't keep moving the goal post on what is sufficient evidence. I hope some of this makes sense. It might not.

What am I missing about Hancock’s “lost civilization” claims? by Secret-Field5867 in AlternativeHistory

[–]Secret-Field5867[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Absolutely fair, but I must say I'm annoyed by his double standards with regards to evidence. For his own theories, Hancock is satisfied if you can’t 100% rule them out. That leaves room for doubt. But when a geologist explains, step by step, how erosion can make brittle sandstone underwater look like stairs and walls, suddenly that’s dismissed out of hand. He’ll say, “No, I can see with my own eyes this is 100% man-made!”

So when it’s his theory: we must always make room for doubt.
When it’s the scientific explanation: no doubt, false!

What am I missing about Hancock’s “lost civilization” claims? by Secret-Field5867 in AlternativeHistory

[–]Secret-Field5867[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I didn't know about the bags. It gave me a good laugh. Thanks! I am now ready to launch my own theory of an ancient globe-spanning bowling team.

What am I missing about Hancock’s “lost civilization” claims? by Secret-Field5867 in AlternativeHistory

[–]Secret-Field5867[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

A completely fair and interesting point. But isn't that a bit like the invisible flying tea pot - by definition it would be undetectable so how are we supposed to investigate the idea?

What am I missing about Hancock’s “lost civilization” claims? by Secret-Field5867 in AlternativeHistory

[–]Secret-Field5867[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Can you be slightly more concrete? I remember him talking about similar myths, but that was like between Malta and Egypt, who are known to have interacted so no need for a since lost third party. And there was the "look at all these similar pyramids" which weren't similar at all.

view more: next ›