What does Veeky Forums think about Graham Hancock

>pure coincidence

It's not coincidence at all.

Cultures that develope under similar ecological pressures will tend to develop in broadly similar fashions.

If your culture develops in a cold place, you will develop a form of housing and dress that protects you from the cold.

like I said Dragons for example are a mithical creature in pretty much every civilization, direct contact can be thrown out of the window since for example Melanesians had no contact with Sumerians or Greeks, same with Mayans.

also in the case of the Flood myths are too similar IMO with a great deluge and cataclysm with an heroic figure who has the favor of the gods, and while contact and cultural transmission could be used for the Greek Myth because of their contact with phoenicians and egyptians what about the Aztec myth of the flood? they no contact nor cultural transmission

If this is one of those "everyone discovers pi, tracked the seasons, the stars, figured the fibonacci sequence, and builds pyramids" things, meh. Same animal, same world, similar circumstances, bound to happen.

However, there probably was once a "mother culture" as modern genetics tell us that, at some point, mankind was reduced to an extremely isolated, heavily inbred population (possibly

Do you have some kind of hatred against letter "y"?

Yeah, but we really stretch the definition of "dragon" to make that fit. It's not like they were using a similar sounding word. A lot of what we call "dragons" are just a big snakes, or even non descript big world eating beasts. Plus, well, dinosaur bones. It's also a pretty clear case of synthesis (four legs AND wings, clearly you've broken something here). Not a lot of folks start wondering allowed if unicorns were real, outside of folk songs for children.

why? If I'm not using it when it's supposed to go it's because my mother language is spanish and our shared words and pretty much all our language seldom uses the letter "Y" it's just out of habit

but while Dragons as we know differ across cultures the concept remains the same, a big most of the time flying snake that breathes something, there's an hyphotesis that the concept of dragons came from the tails of comets and such and it sound plausible but then you have other creatures like vampires and were-somethings for example the Nahuales in Mexico and Werewolves in Europe

same with the myth of some ancient city destroyed in a catastrophe like Atlantis in Greece, Aztlan in Mexico both swalloed by the sea, Sodom and Gomorrah and Tripura with Gods wiping them out in a rain of fire, or the myth of the resurrecting God like Jesus, Osiris or Quetzalcoatl

I mean there may be no real correlation but we can find many similarities if we compare mythologies around the world

Hey man, what if, like, all the cultures were all descended from some, like, super-culture? Really makes you think.

nah it's not one of those, it's more of a "there was a precursor culture that wasn't as primitive as we thought it was because of X, Y and Z... oh and also here's some geological evidence about the Great Sphinx being built earlier than we thought" coupled with a theory about the ending of the ice age, some comparative arquitecture and mythology and that's about it

>Same with the Globeki Tepe thing, around that time people were supposed to be nomadic
No they weren't, it's roughly contemporary with early permanent towns such as Catal Hoyuk.
People who believe the theories of Hancock et al almost univerally have no understanding of basic archaeological principles, and it shows.

>he is not an archaeologist
FUCKING EXACTLY
Would you trust an untrained journalist to make sweeping, unsupported theories about biochemistry that go against the vast sum of material published before and after? Fuck no. So why do it with archaeology?

Yeah, you know how you get flying snakes? You stick a bird and a snake together.

You know what all cultures with flying snake myths have? Snakes and birds.

well he has interviewed real archeologists and cited their works, I don't believe him wholy but I believe he has some interesting hyphotesis like the event that caused the Younger Driads for which there has been more evidence discovered by real geologists to support the claim that a comet crashed into the north american Ice sheet

>same with the myth of some ancient city destroyed in a catastrophe like Atlantis in Greece, Aztlan in Mexico both swalloed by the sea, Sodom and Gomorrah and Tripura with Gods wiping them out in a rain of fire, or the myth of the resurrecting God like Jesus, Osiris or Quetzalcoatl
Cuz shit like Pompeii happens, and that just screams "the gods are pissed", and etches pretty well into the long term collective memory.

>most of the time flying snake that breathes something
A lot of what we refer to as dragons don't satisfy either of these requirements. Hell, sometimes scholars will even point to the Kraken as a dragon. We call sea creatures dragons. Similarly, a long-necked Goddesses with no legs and seven heads, that don't breath anything, suddenly becomes a dragon. There's a lot of retro engineering involved to make it fit the visage of the European dragon, which itself isn't particularly consistent.

Man Catal Hoyuk was founded 2 thousand years after Globeki Tepe according to carbon dating, in the 10th millenium bc sure as hell people still were atleast semi nomadic in nature and the agricultural revolution hadn't started yet.

According to Schmidt (the fucker who discovered it) Globeki Tepe probably acted as either burial or worshipping ground for peoples in the vicinity before permanent settlements

I hadn't thought of the euro engineering on the concept, thank you for giving me light on that, probably the concept of the flying something breathing snake really came from ancient people watching comets like some anthropologist theorize

I was using an example, Catal Hoyuk is a large settlement and smaller ones would have almost certainly existed before then.
>agricultural revolution hadn't started yet
You say this, but about 10,000BP is roughly the date where you start to see early traits of domestication in cereal grain remains. It takes a long time for these adaptations to appear in the archaeological record, so some degree of agriculture was likely occurring even 12,000 years ago.
I would certainly postulste that there was at least semi-permanent settlement occurring in the region when Gobekli Tepe was built.

>We call sea creatures dragons. Similarly, a long-necked Goddesses with no legs and seven heads, that don't breath anything, suddenly becomes a dragon
I assume this is a reference to Tiamat... It wasn't even that she had seven heads, she "saw from seven directions" (suggestive of omniscience, countering Marduk's seven eyes, which again, symbolic, not literal, given the images of Marduk). She had the head of a lioness, the feat of a falcon, and the wings of an owl (The Babylonians had a thing with owls).

...and yeah, somehow that became a dragon.

Really, any great beast slain by the hero is a dragon, from a Jungian point of view (as is any faceless challenge, really) - but yes, there is a bit of "Europeanization" going on, turning nearly every creature from mythology into a classical dragon.

I think he is more in the lines of Bill Nye who atleast until his recent stunt on the netflix show just divulged stuff discovered by others.

Hancock atleast sounds like the most credible of famous pseudoarcheologist since he seldom dwells on ancient aliens and all that fuckery and stays within the realm of reality at the end of the day he is nothing more than someone who got famous for asking "what if"

yeah I would believe the same, while not fully nomadic I can get along with the argument of semi nomadic people like some african cultures are today where while not having a permanent settlement they wander about in an specific territory

yeah that europeanization of mythological creatures sucks hairy balls, there are many great creatures around the world and it pisses me off that they have all been turned into a fire breathing lizard

what you are proposing is that only if you have a degree in certain something you can have an opinion on a subject, by that logic we are not allowed to theorize, have opinions or ask questions about any given subject

his younger driads hyphotesis is based atleast since 2007 in real science tho

Opinion yes.

Writing books while pretending to speak from a position of authority while claiming everyone more educated than you on the subject is wrong, no.

(Let alone entering publicly televised debates on the subject - but clearly I'm not talking about Hancock anymore.)

Bill Nye isn't positing his own scientific theories though, he's just defending the theories of others in a debate format. That's fine, that's kinda the point organised debate. It's the mark of a good debater to be able to defend a viewpoint that they don't even believe in.

Well, it's bad when he's put in a debate that's putting evolution on trial, and he's part of the defense, when the only non-honorary degree he has is in engineering. Fugger doesn't even have a debate team trophy under his belt, let alone any formal education on the subject. Yet he still gets presented as a supposed expert.

It's like putting Mr. Rogers in a physics debate with Oppenheimer. Except Mr. Rogers is cool as fuck, and thus would never do it, except to ask Oppenheimer how his day was, unlike this asshole.

Well yeah, it's a televised debate for the general public, it's not going to have genuine scientific value. It's TV, what do you expect?

Meh, at least do better than a children's television show host.

Kinda tired of a guy with a bachelors and no real science background being the face of science.

It's true, however, as Bill is just parroting talking points, Hancock's sins against intellectual honesty maybe worse, just not as widespread.

I remember liking Bill a long time ago, what happened?

He started pretending he was an actual scientist, instead of a fun TV personality.

You'd have much the same response if Christopher Lloyd got in his labcoat and started doing a debate circuit about temporal mechanics.

I guess it's just a problem with the US, because in the UK we have Brian Cox.

Damn, so he started taking himself too seriously. I guess we'll always have old Bill

>UK
In that case, replace Christopher Lloyd with David Tennant.

You also have Bill Nighy

Brian Cox the physicist, not Brian Cox the Dundonian actor.

youtu.be/VPOa72dsrGw

I know

to put I don't know Dawkins instead of Bill Nye? even throught Dawkins is an insuferable bastard atleast he is a real scientist

Well, Brian Cox, for all his annoying exuberance, is at least an actual physicist.

The only other pop-sci guy we have in the US is a black man, and no one wants that, so...

what about Michu Kaku? he is a real physicist aswell

*Michio Kaku
he is less anoying than Science Negro and Bill Nye the dumb fuck

He's a Jap. People keep making anime jokes. Similar reason as to why Bill gets more limelight than Neil Degrasse "Le Black Science Man" Tyson.

Do you hate Tyson on the fact that he's black or do other factors come in as well?

Jealous of his moustache.

Understandable.

Not him, but he does come off a bit condescending and flat sometimes. I'll give Bill some credit for being the better actor. Man I miss Sagan though - he had good weed.

youtube.com/watch?v=QnAziU3P1V8

Personally, I like Tyson, I just know that most of my fellow countrymen (along with most of Veeky Forums - of which there is much overlap) are "uncomfortable" with the idea of a smart black man, and get angry at the fact that his inner nigger doesn't slip through often enough.

>condescending
Yes, very much so. I like him when he gets angry tho.

>I miss Sagan
Still got my dad's VCR tapes. He was a poet that one.

>I like Tyson
He's pretty good at what he does. He's no Sagan, but good ol' Carl was a statistical improbability.

Nah, him being black is not even a factor, I hate his know it all condescending attitude

>He's pretty good at what he does. He's no Sagan, but good ol' Carl was a statistical improbability.

this, Tyson IMO tries to be like Sagan without Sagan's humility but he is pretty educated in what he does still my argumentstands

I hate how fucking condescending he comes across

>and the "scientific" community because of his theories?
Stopped reading there and filtered the thread.

Why the quotation marks? If you want people to take you seriously, maybe you shouldn't start off with being a douche towards the whole scientific community, just because you found some dismissed fringe theory, in the OP.

I don't find him that condescending but I get it. Still, there's no one better to rile the normies and educate them or at least turn them toward science than him right now.

Ya know, that I think on it... We really don't have a charismatic white cutting edge science-guy, who is also an actual scientist, to be spokesman in America right now.

...We got a black guy, a couple of Jews, a Jap, and a fake science guy.

We're in trouble, aren't we?

>we
So educated people need to be of your race, gender, preferably political orientation and hopefully supporting the same apehoop/concussionball team as you.

Well, not for me personally, but that is certainly true for the bulk of this nation.

Without such a figure, we're just going to get more and more anti-intellectuals. The more screen time Tyson gets, the more equating science and satan we're going to get from the white sector. ...and while white is technically not a majority anymore (or soon not-to-be, depending on how you count), as the recent election suggests, they aren't a block you can ignore.

I'd much rather pander to the racists, than have the nation dragged into the dark ages by angry anti-intellectuals because we keep shoving it in their faces.

...Granted Bill's little spectrum disorder dance isn't helping that either.

Top kek

Fuck the public face of science, your president is a bigger threat to the discipline.

no u

no me

Meh, he'll be gone in the next four to eight years (if not sooner).

The public face of science will have some sway in what replaces him. Indeed, a large part of why he was elected was the failure of the science PR to create enough love for knowledge that people would avoid being lead by an anti-intellectual. (And this is far from the first time it's failed so miserably in its job.)

Granted, it had a lot more to do with everyone hating Hillary so much - but it was close enough that every little bit counts.

>everyone
People's hate for Trump is incomparable, at least in my lifetime. The only people that were hated more were Carter and maybe, maybe, Nixon

How do you sell science to Jesus freaks?

You don't, you take the right to vote from them. Funnily, that would probably cut the black and mexican voting pool more than they would the white one.

Jeeze, you must be even older than I am.

From what I recall of Carter, we didn't hate him personally. We didn't feel he was evil - his heart was in the right place. We just felt he was hella incompetent.

While the GOP machine liked to claim Hillary was incompetent, that wasn't the real fear with her. The real fear, was that she was extremely competent (and as the left liked to point out, she would have been the most qualified person to ever hold office - which just made her even scarier to the right). If you gotta choose between incompetent evil and competent evil, well...

Nah, I'm just taking this from the older people I hang around where I work, I was born in the early Bush years. The first prez I remember is Bill and Bill was popular even among Reps in the 90's, even after the Lewinski scandal. Bush was widely unpopular and rightly so, while Obama was the first time I saw my own party make compromises to support a weak prez just to not let the Reps get into office again with one of the absolute loons they were pushing. Honestly, the Rep nominee I liked most was McCain by far, but he got fucked by his own party because that bitch was dumb as rocks. She would have made a great viceprez to Trump, imagine how hard the world would be laffing at us with those 2 in office.

"Find" a new set of Dead Sea Scrolls that has Jesus quoted as saying he will be waiting for us on Trappist-1, and only those who aid in reaching him will be saved.

...Or, you know, just don't use science to actually antagonize them. Don't keep flaunting non-white scientists and using ""science"" to promote the-gay and other shit they don't like. Maybe focus more on how the fact that every-other theory they do have a problem with came from some extremely religious scientist, how the church used to defend reason and rationalism and gave rise to science, some shit about how reason brings us closer to God, with less of the Dawkins crap, etc. etc.

It's social engineering, not rocket science!

So we should pander to the worst, dumbest most uneducated fucking loons in our society just in the hopes we don't piss them off? Top kek, fuck off you milquetoast cocksucker

Yeah, I liked McCain to, voted him in earlier primaries - and then suddenly there was Soccer Mom™. His other potential pick was Joe Lieberman, a freaking Democrat (albeit a Dino), so I figured he had just lost it at some point.

The religious bushfags shoved her down his throat. He's still sharp, but he fell prey to a party trying to pander to fags like this one.

In a representative republic in which they hold majority power? Hell yes you do! At least in hopes that you can swing enough of them over to erode their power and/or give some hope to their next generation.

You don't constantly clamp your ass cheeks around their face and fart in it while screaming about how stupid they are, when they hold all the damned cards - save that for after you've reduced them to a smouldering minority the side of the Westboro Baptists.

...

>majority power

What a milquetoast pussy-ass faggot you are.

Presidency, House, Senate, Governorships, and now the Supreme Court, all majority held by people propelled to power by the party of the Religious Right.

Listen to Einstein. Human stupidity is not to be underestimated. While it's in control, better to guide it and make it work for you, than to piss it the fuck off.

...and to be fair, it's not as if they don't have some good points you might be able to placate them with.

sad but true, scientific discourse is pretty much death in pop culture nowadays apart from what Nye and burger flipping teachers spout

Everybody thought he was crazy.

Then this shit happened:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Göbekli_Tepe

>ritual use dating back to the 10th–8th millennium BCE

...and now it turns out he wasn't crazy at all and we don't know fucking jack shit about what the fuck happened back then.

>In a representative republic in which they hold majority power? Hell yes you do

So we're in agreement, the US is an unredeemable shitehole?

Well that's that, if you have half a dick and respect yourself move somewhere sensible.

We've long suspected that civilization might be quite a bit older than what we've discovered, and we know there were quasi civilizations even older than the temple at Göbekli Tepe in the form of temporary fortifications and possibly trading posts.

But that doesn't give you Atlantis, and civilization would have to be a whole lot older to reach that genetic bottleneck and have some relation to any proto culture that may have existed at the time. The genetic samplings comparing the wheat preserved there with modern wheat, and its drift from wild wheat, suggest the civilization that built Göbekli Tepe wasn't a whole lot older, and hadn't been domesticating wheat for very long.

It certainly doesn't suggest that a pole shift shuffled the continents around and gods walked among us ala Spirit Science. Pole shifts happen - but they aren't particularly cataclysmic (though maybe a bit more than they once were, now that we have an electric grid).

There's only a handful of generations and not a lot of genetics separating these doofuses from the guys who helped spur The Enlightenment and spelled science with a capital S. Hell, some of the folks responsible for getting us on the moon are still alive.

They can be coaxed back, and I've more power to do play my minute part in that effort here than abroad. They really just need more carrot, and less stick.

Besides, this economy is the world wide equivalent of "too big to fail", and if it collapses suddenly, we're looking at a dark age that'll stain the oceans red. I don't trust the Chinese to save humanity without competition driving them nor anyone else to keep the Russians from going full Ivan. Most of Europe is increasingly in the same reactionary mode we're in for ignoring the pleas of the same sorts of people, and those nations that aren't are headed there for the same reasons - seemingly blind to the mistakes of both their neighbors and the US.

In the end, there's nowhere to run, so the only hope is to help prevent the cascade that'll cause the avalanche to start here, as should I be elsewhere on the mountain later, it'll be too late for the pebbles to vote.

The big difference is the Enlightenment thinkers were, mainly, French and grew up in a highly educated and zealously secular environment.

Americans today are morons, and they are fighting tooth an nail to stay that way. They're really not that different to Arabs.

>France
>ever secular

Why are on Veeky Forums if you don't know the first thing about history?

A few of them were, many of the others were aristocrats that grew up with puritans so backwards they were basically kicked out of England. And besides, it's not as if they went back home to France after the revolution and didn't have a ridiculous number of kids. Hell, even Benji is buried here (granted I'm sure he had a thousand bastards in France).

Does it matter? Slavish religious zealotry is cultural not genetic, and the US is a cultural drip tray.

To look at it another way, that means there's nothing preventing it from swinging the other way again.

Chin up, mate.

Yes there is, the fact that America is a cultural drip tray and the Jesus Freaks are fighting to keep it that way.

THIS THIS THIS

FUCK relgion

It's not the first time...

...It's just the last few times, the folks on the other end weren't being just as stubborn nor pretending the problem didn't exist or would just go away.

Adams and Jefferson may not have seen eye to eye, but each was willing to sell their stuff to one another and trade intellectual goods. This isn't unlike that situation writ large, save that we're stuck in the name calling and plugging of ears stage.

This smacks of wishful thinking.

Well, given the alternatives, kinda all we're left with.

I fail to see how dispelling the "evil church" myths will reach out to protestants, considering they're the ones who started propagating them in the first place.