I tend to agree with this statement though, I myself have realized a long while ago now that, most all the science that is accepted as fact because, they push it as fact, is nothing but a theory "someone came up with" in the first place and others just used their findings based off the first guys thoughts, when it comes to science/human/animal and earth history. We are a species with amnesia of our past for the most and it gets darker every generation that passes.
I have been tracking Hancock's progress for a while and he keeps making links that make sense - I know he gets criticised for building off other people's work - but I find he's pretty good at giving his sources and giving credit to those sources - so I think that is just more establishment 'credentialism' to avoid the fact that he keeps on asking really, really good questions. How come the Great Pyramid - is a scale model of Earth? How come the Sphinx has water erosion marks if it is only 4500 years old and Egypt wasn't wet 4500 years ago and to get those marks it would have to be over twice that old. How come the Sphinx points to where Leo would have been on midsummer's day 13000 years ago. If civilisation is only 4500 years old - WTF Goblecki Tepe in Turkey which is also 13000 years old. And on and on and on with the good questions - and archeaology just dismisses everything he says. We know on this forum here that when credential establishment figures dismiss something - they're basically covering something up.
The problem is that academia stays within its artificial sectored boundaries. which is not how knowledge was approached, even a few hundred years ago. Archeologists do not really talk to Geologists, for example. Which is weird if you think about it - they are both digging into soil and dating stuff. What Hancock is doing is joining their dots, which is outrageous to the establishment. The same thing happens between Psychologists and Strategic Management types. Again - weird - why would management strategy not include a measure of how mass psychology works?
The premise of Science is to take a theory and disprove it. These days, people are trying to make science concrete and irrefutable, (famously illustrated by Pelosi's "Science, Science, science" comment) but that is not what is supposed to happen. Those people who disprove hypotheses, like Hancock and Carlson, are now seen as heretics. REEEeeeEEE.
You're just supposed to shut up and believe the Great Pyramid was built at the beginning of the Egyptian civilization and their building skills rapidly declined thereafter.
Yep, one of the first statments in the show was a guy interviewing Hancock and questioning why he couldn't just say this is weird and stop there?
Why did he have to make a theory around the weird?
I got so mad because making a theory around discovery is litterally what all of archeology does. Its all theoretical. It is all it will ever be. It is just the "accepted" theory. Doesn't make it fact.
Same as it has ever been. Why do you think they were and still are pushing "Big Bang Theory" as if 100% proven Fact or "Fossil Fuel" as fact when it comes to Petroleum? Whomever controls the science decides on what to record it as being.
All theories and people furthering their knowledge off those theories. Seems a good way for people to no longer be able to actually figure shit out in the long run unless, they scrap what they have been told and do as Graham has done, get out there and do your own research. heh.
I tend to agree with this statement though, I myself have realized a long while ago now that, most all the science that is accepted as fact because, they push it as fact, is nothing but a theory "someone came up with" in the first place and others just used their findings based off the first guys thoughts, when it comes to science/human/animal and earth history. We are a species with amnesia of our past for the most and it gets darker every generation that passes.
I have been tracking Hancock's progress for a while and he keeps making links that make sense - I know he gets criticised for building off other people's work - but I find he's pretty good at giving his sources and giving credit to those sources - so I think that is just more establishment 'credentialism' to avoid the fact that he keeps on asking really, really good questions. How come the Great Pyramid - is a scale model of Earth? How come the Sphinx has water erosion marks if it is only 4500 years old and Egypt wasn't wet 4500 years ago and to get those marks it would have to be over twice that old. How come the Sphinx points to where Leo would have been on midsummer's day 13000 years ago. If civilisation is only 4500 years old - WTF Goblecki Tepe in Turkey which is also 13000 years old. And on and on and on with the good questions - and archeaology just dismisses everything he says. We know on this forum here that when credential establishment figures dismiss something - they're basically covering something up.
Wierd criticism since that's supposedly literally what academia is
That too. They're desperate.
The problem is that academia stays within its artificial sectored boundaries. which is not how knowledge was approached, even a few hundred years ago. Archeologists do not really talk to Geologists, for example. Which is weird if you think about it - they are both digging into soil and dating stuff. What Hancock is doing is joining their dots, which is outrageous to the establishment. The same thing happens between Psychologists and Strategic Management types. Again - weird - why would management strategy not include a measure of how mass psychology works?
The premise of Science is to take a theory and disprove it. These days, people are trying to make science concrete and irrefutable, (famously illustrated by Pelosi's "Science, Science, science" comment) but that is not what is supposed to happen. Those people who disprove hypotheses, like Hancock and Carlson, are now seen as heretics. REEEeeeEEE.
You're just supposed to shut up and believe the Great Pyramid was built at the beginning of the Egyptian civilization and their building skills rapidly declined thereafter.
Only because evil rulers hide truth
Yep, one of the first statments in the show was a guy interviewing Hancock and questioning why he couldn't just say this is weird and stop there?
Why did he have to make a theory around the weird?
I got so mad because making a theory around discovery is litterally what all of archeology does. Its all theoretical. It is all it will ever be. It is just the "accepted" theory. Doesn't make it fact.
What a joke these "intelectuals" are.
Same as it has ever been. Why do you think they were and still are pushing "Big Bang Theory" as if 100% proven Fact or "Fossil Fuel" as fact when it comes to Petroleum? Whomever controls the science decides on what to record it as being. All theories and people furthering their knowledge off those theories. Seems a good way for people to no longer be able to actually figure shit out in the long run unless, they scrap what they have been told and do as Graham has done, get out there and do your own research. heh.