When Fake Archaeology Uses Fake Science
Vložit
- čas přidán 27. 06. 2024
- Dr. M discusses common pseudoscientific arguments used to support pseudo archaeology.
CONTENTS
00:00 Intro
01:55 Hyperdiffusionism
06:02 Classical Social Evolution
08:07 Homology
10:27 Precisionism
13:41 Telluric Energies and Ley Lines
16:45 Mohs Scale
17:51 Mathematical Coincidences
►LEAVE A COMMENT
Be respectful and courteous to other commenters.
If your comment does not appear, try again with different words. CZcams sometimes glitches and comments don't go through. Or they might flag your comment as potentially inappropriate.
►DOWNLOAD Professor Miano's free e-booklet: "Why Ancient History Matters":
mailchi.mp/a402112ea4db/why-a...
►SUBSCRIBE to the World of Antiquity CZcams Channel for regular ancient history content.
► SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL
Supporters get access to behind-the-scenes videos, early-release videos, course discounts and more! / worldofantiquity
FTC Disclaimer Notice: Some of the links here may be affiliate links, meaning that if you click on them and purchase something on another website, I get a small commission. It doesn't cost you any extra, but I thought you should know! It does help support the channel.
► FURTHER READING
anthropology.ua.edu/theory/di...
edubirdie.com/examples/classi...
theness.com/neurologicablog/p...
www.iflscience.com/what-are-l...
rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ramsey_...
Professor Miano's handy guide for learning, "How to Know Stuff," is available here:
www.amazon.com/How-Know-Stuff...
Follow Professor Miano on social media:
►FACEBOOK: / drdavidmiano
►TWITTER: / drdavidmiano
►INSTAGRAM: / drmiano
I had a great science teacher from 7th through 9th grades. He was smart, interesting, and had a knack for teaching. When Chariots of the Gods came out (1968), it was all the talk in our small school. Our teacher took the opportunity to debunk everything in it with simple experiments. His point was that primitive peoples may not have had the technology we have, but they weren't stupid. He used wooden stakes and fire to split sandstone, he used other stones to polish it. There was an idea that the Great Pyramids were somehow laid out according to PI..so he took a tire, strapped a wedge to it and had us roll it down the sides of the football field and across and back...he then showed us by using the indentations in the field as your corners...you got sides that mathematically lined up with PI. He taught us the scientific method very early, he talked to us like we were adults. In another experiment he had about five of us, using just 4x4 inch levers, move a very large stone all over a field. Once we got the hang of it, moving that stone was easy. I was so lucky to have really great teachers. Something I've noticed about people expounding on silly ideas is they throw out non-existent science as though it's a known truth, they talk fast and never give you a chance to respond, they use half-truths mixed with facts, and they jump to conclusions with the least real data available.
👍
Le Gish Gallop: a scourge.
Sounds like a really cool teacher.
It's so much easier and more believable for the popular teacher to sit back and simply say, "It was all space aliens." You don't even have to go outside.
That's probably what Graham Hancock's teacher said. 😜@@revolutionaryhamburger
"tools don't make artefacts, people do" - very well put, David
I am sure I am not the only who was convinged that buying more tools would make me a better handiman.
So if i give a cnc controlled laser cutting tool to a chinese person, will they be able to produce precision parts?
This applies to computer engineering.
Ai was developed by humans
graham hancock is the biggest fraud! but he doesnt bother with fake evidence he just makes absurd claims!
Guns don't kill people, people do. Put another way, if a person doesn't have a gun, then he can't shoot anyone. This revolutionary idea has yet to permeate the 'Murican mindset of course.
As someone that worked on evolutionary biology I would like to add that when biologists see two organisms with a similar feature our first assumption is not that they are related. We have seen enough cases of convergent evolution to realize that most of the time it means they perform a similar action and this feature is the best way to perform such action.
Features that signal a relation between 2 different species to a evolutionary biologist are silly things that aren't apparent at first glance, like the shape of certain bones in the skull or the angle of certain pelvic bones. These are often changes that indicate a species diverging from an ancestor and creating a new family of species that all share this trait and thus show a related ancestry.
Which is much like archaeological research, a pyramid is just the easiest way to build a big structure, so the fact different, unrelated civilizations adopted the shape is expected, but relation is shown in little things, like evolution of language, timing of adopting certain technological advances or similar mythologies.
Such a cool field of study! Bet there are things known inside your field that would really be fascinating to investigate. My first real intro was thru my Mother (a Psychologist) and saw first hand the impact on Science and Society after watching Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial. A comment by many of the reporters during this trial was a lot of the science they were learning about, they were learning for the first time, which is sad.
@@kevinmurphy65 I went to the Smithsonian Natural History Museum in Washington while on vacation in the US and me and my wife (a medical biologists) felt the exhibit on evolution had a lot of parts that we worded quite badly. It seemed to imply a directionality or intent behind evolution.
Evolutionary theory is actually a really simple concept to understand, but, in my opinion, not explained well by most science communicators. I don't know whether I would be able to do a better job, but almost every time I see a video attempting it I cringe at some of the words used or the simplifications attempted that just end up not teaching people how the evolutionary process really operates...
We're all destined to become crabs 🥴
Also smaller motifs, like specific forms of the top of columns or the shape of a pyramid than the fact of "a pyramid" itself, e.g. the Mayan pyramids have a distinctive style beyond simply being "pyramidal" like the staggering, top temples, and stairs up the sides. A pyramid, itself, is literally just a man-made mountain. That's all you need to know to understand why they are/were built. Both structurally and in terms of inspiration.
Yeah. I think that we do not all come from the same chemical reaction that could reproduce itself. That was a big ocean.
20:22 I heard _"The use of meth makes it look like something scientific and objective"_ and while I know I'm wrong, I'm also right.
LOL ok glad I was not drinking milk when reading your comment!
Also makes you want to spend hours taking it apart to see how it works, because it's just that super-interesting.
like the tweaker i met very late one night in Berkeley who got all excited when he saw me carrying a small coffee table (long story) and I had to put it down while he rummaged thru his box of tweaker treasures. He pulled out a recently-dead blackbird, a carnelian flower, several exploded pens (that he tried to use to write notes in his notebook but none of them worked and he got ink all over his hands) and a few old radio parts and computer boards. He put them all on my table and was very intently trying to assemble them into a bio-techno thing that would do *something* remarkable I'm sure but he got frustrated that he couldn't record the procedure in his notebook so in the end he just started stabbing the dead blackbird with one of his dead pens. This might have been part of the procedure, I wasn't sure. He was very scientific about it all.
Regarding precisionism: A machinist should be familiar with a certain artifact known as a surface plate. A slab of rock with a perfectly flat surface. I'm talking down to a few micrometers of flatness. These are made with nothing more than a few reasonably square pieces of stone, coloured paste and grit. You can do this at home if you want with no more tools or gauges than your hands and eyes.
Quite profound!
A personal thought:
I find it interesting that people have such a hard time believing multiple groups of people can come up with the same solution without contact and exchange of information.
No matter where you’re born or what time you were born we all come into the world with the same tool kit. Two arms, two legs, a brain, strong back and a curiosity. So why is it so unreasonable to think we would find similar solutions to the same problem.?
Similar materials and needs tend towards similar solutions. Once we get past simple things (basic tools, pottery, baskets, etc), the differences usually show up in the details of construction or function.
It's not unreasonable. These outlandish ideas ie. Advanced ancient technology are just ideas.
And it's not just us humans. It also heavily depends on the subject and our environment. There are only so many variations, on how to make a fire or on how to make a container to store liquids. No wonder people all over the world developed similar concepts.
@@jasongarcia2140they’re dumb ideas.
Give a toddler some building blocks and they will come up with some form of step pyramind.
My baby nephew likes to make pyramids with his blocks, so clearly, my sister hooked up with a time traveling Atlantean.
I don't remember preschool well, but I do remember playing with blocks.
That would be the only logical conclusion.
Great comment ❤
My wife had one of those kids, divorced her immediately. Crazy witch even tried to make ME pay child support.
When your nephew starts playing hide n seek and you can’t find him anywhere.
Just know that he used the pyramid shape as the key for opening Atlantis.
If not for channels like yours I’d still be watching “Woo” channels and believing the likes of Hancock.. So Thankyou for putting me on the right path 👍🏻
You don`t have to believe everything, but just listen to the ideas. I bet you that not everything he says is untrue. And his theories makes people think. Many people have been mocked through the centuries on their theories that turned out to be true. Remember when the eaarth was flat?
@@Catdad76801why?
Isn't he just proposing ideas?
I mean he states himself that he is not a scientist.
Archeology needs forensic science.
@@jasongarcia2140 _"Archeology needs forensic science"_
Exactly how do you believe archaeology works?
@@jasongarcia2140 _"Isn't he just proposing ideas?"_
No, he is not "just' doing that. His business model depends on selling the image of himself as a brave crusader against a conspiracy of mainstream academia, and to that end he deliberately misrepresents finds and denigrates work already done.
Why has everyone turned on Hancock, he always stated he’s not sold on any 1 idea and that proof has not yet been provided and or certain. New discoveries are made yearly that contradict many mainstream theories. That’s all these things are theories. We can’t be so rigid in our thinking, that’s so arrogant to believe we have everything figured out, on history that happened so long ago with little evidences recorded
Unfortunately for every channel like yours that actually put people on the right path to understanding the past there are what seems a thousand pseudo sites espousing inaccuracies. Thank you for addressing the fallacies. Totally dig your site.
It's a plague. I guess because Atlantis/Aliens are cool and easy concept to believe in. The mind goes : ' Pyramid over here. Pyramid over there. must be same people behind it ...Duh. And now they can fantasize about all kinds of cool ideas, instead of reading and studying all these boring books with annoying facts.
Funny you should say that when he is pushing a fallacy himself. His definition of civilization is wrong, making his statement, that civilization isn't inevitable, false. By the definition of civilization, not only is it inevitable, humanity has never existed without it.
@@jeffstrom164 That depends on what you mean with civilisatie. Do yo call (for example) Nomadic tribes made up by by a small number of families a civilization ?
@spiritualanarchist8162 by the definition of civilization, yes. That is civilization. Civilization has no numerical requirement. It's not a binary. Its a scale involving many different things, none of which are required individually.
@@jeffstrom164 What I mean is that ,there are (atleast) two ways to use the word civilization .
One . The customs , traditions a group of people have , can be called 'their civilization '
Or civilization can be used for : an advanced state of human society in with a high level of culture, science, industry, and government .
One of the funniest things is how ancient aliens used us as slave labor. As if earths minerals can’t be found anywhere else and they don’t have robots and shit that can mine without the hassle of dealing with people.
Obviously the logical thing for a space faring civilization to do would be to travel to an entirely different solar system just to land on the most massive terrestrial planet that also has a fairly thick atmosphere, thus making it the most expensive location to acquire minerals, and then enslave a stone age population instead of using mechanization to mine their minerals. Only to mine an absolutely tiny fraction of what said population will themselves mine later in just two centuries using mechanization.
In general I tend to find that UFOlogists have a completely absurd idea of what space is like and what makes sense for aliens to do. Like if aliens wanted to observe us they wouldn't be flying around in our atmosphere, they'd construct a giant autonomous telescope in the Oort cloud where we have no chance of detecting it. Like we can build the JWST and we are only just getting the hang of space travel, surely a space faring civilization could easily build something much more advanced.
Back in the 1960s, ‘enhanced’ versions of Watkin’s Ley Line Theory were very popular. Being somewhat sceptical, we (college students at the time) drew a random series of straight lines on an Ordnance Survey map of southern England; twelve lines, each representing around 25 miles. Every one passed through at least six (with a couple passing 10) ‘sacred sites.’ It was all but impossible to draw a line which DIDN’T pass through or beside such sites as churches, stone circles, burial mounds, hillforts and so on simply because there were so many of them.
I’m also reminded of a conclusion reached by a (then) leading anthropologist who had discovered a 300 metre set of tracks made by a family group of pre-homo-sapiens. He concluded that they were not yet tool-users as no tools or flakes had been found associated with the tracks. NO! Had it not occurred to him that the makers of the tracks might just possibly have been capable of walking 300 metres without dropping anything?
Excellent, thoughtful video - as we’ve come to anticipate. Thanks for your excellent work.
I did an A level in archaeology. In an early project you had to take an Ordnance Survey sheet map and count all the archaeological sites on it. I took the map I had in my house - it was the one containing Stonehenge. My tutor laughed when I sent the results in and said it was a bad choice because how rich in sites that area is. A line going through that map would hit endless sites
A few years ago Matt Parker (Stand Up Maths on youtube)took a similar claim about archaeological sites forming isosceles triangles and worked out the odds of finding those triangles to that precision in random data.
He then followed it up by finding the same patterns in locations of old Woolworth's locations, to demonstrate the point.
the video quality is visibly better, well done!
Hey, bro. I saw some of your recent Serapeum photos. Great work.
@@Leeside999 Thanks, although the conditions were not ideal. Would have love to have more time and to do better 😅
I came to say the same..I lighting is much better
Tres. And THANKS for this gem. 🙌🏼
Nice warm lighting
One thing that this video just touches on a few times is that the human brain is a pattern matching machine. Our brains are phenomenally good at finding patterns and are constantly looking for patterns. This is very useful but also has a big downside: false positives. Our brains are so eager to find patterns that we will find patterns and create meaning out of mere coincidence. Being the social creatures we are, the pattern we are looking for the most is human faces. This is one reason we anthropomorphize so many things. Another pattern we are always on the alert for is animals. This was once very important when we were both hunters and prey. "That cloud looks like a rabbit." [brain recognizes a possible meal] "That cloud looks like a lion." [brain recognizes the possibility of _becoming_ a meal] It is pretty rare for us to look at the clouds and see something like a fire hydrant or a 737 MAX door plug... uh oh-
Future archaeologists will discover that all the great religious sites are at the intersection of lines drawn between branches of a well known supermarket.
😄
Please pause at 10:42 this image claiming perfect symmetry is right out of Christopher Dunn's book. At a glance the beard and philtrum( under the nose) are offset. He just arbitrarily added some fat lines on top of a picture and measured nothing.
I am always amazed at the obvious non-symmetry that Dunn commands you to believe is symmetry.
But but but Christopher Dunn is an eNGinEEr!!!!
@@Eyes_Open Rogan has them put the pics up on his screen and goes "ohhhhh woOow" 🤦♂️
@@itsnot_stupid_ifitworks ben from uncharted x pulled a photo of an Egyptian granite core, on Joe's podcast and begun to wonder at how impossible it is....without realizing he's looking at an experimental replica made by scientists against myths 🤣
Of course, he still pretends that didn't happened...
On almost every one of those "but the symmetry though" claims, specifically the vessels, you'll see handles with far less symmetry, often off set from each other. and when you bring them up, it's always dismissed
Precisionism infuriates me to no end. An ancient global supercivilization used their lasers, "vibration and frequency" and other incredible technological advancements to.... stack rocks. Surely if they could build a laser, they'd have mined iron, titanium, aluminum, tungsten, and so on to build incredible structures with less material and labor involved.
The allure of pseudo science is compelling to some , but the truth is more fascinating than they could ever be !
Especially when you realise the past civilizations were just like us , but more social / cultural.
Blessings 🙏 to you all ⭐
So true
Almost everyone I've known loves ancient aliens and its still on TV. If I bring up logic, conversations drop and persuasiveness fails everytime. In fact I've risked friendship positions
That's sad.
I liked that show (sort of) at one point years ago but I love Hancock.
@@jasongarcia2140 Then you love a liar.
@@AlbertaGeek ok. I can love what I love. I don't think he's lying. I disagree with you.
He may be incorrect about his ideas but I completely disagree with you that he is lying.
@@jasongarcia2140 _"I can love what I love"_
Didn't say you couldn't.
_"I don't think he's lying"_
It doesn't matter what you think. It has been demonstrated to be the case in numerous videos critiquing him.
Honestly, you sound more like a religious devotee than someone who is curious and inquisitive. Of course not everyone _has_ to be curious and inquisitive, I just find it a little sad when someone is not.
@@AlbertaGeek And you are guilty of the same crime, loving BS and being fully convinced that its real science. I'm talking about the nonsensical BS claims of Einstein. You love it, but its pseudoscience, the greatest example of misinformation ever and the cause of a lot of other silly ideas. Never have so many lies been used to prop up a really morainic idea. But its all done to server a greater agenda, basically to get you to "trust the science". In this way governments can get you to do agree to almost anything.
Another way to use soft tools to shape hard rocks is to use abrasives. For example, Egyptians used a copper or bronze saw to cut granite. The saw itself didn't do the cutting - instead the work was done by corundum powder between the saw and the stone. In fact, we still use this principle. Sandpaper, for example.
Im not sure if the math behind that theory works. but we will never get a real study about it... Archaeology is not used to the amount of math needed to get a good answer and they are allergic to any kind of hard data...
We dont even have any data about how much energy was needed to build any of the megastructures in question.
The idea that acoustical properties of ancient buildings was always intentional or required advanced knowledge, also regularly pops up. They certainly knew how to design theatres etc, but the idea that some enclosed spaces are specifically tuned to a certain holy frequency is new age nonsens. Or that a pyramid stair is designed so the echo of a clap sounds like a bird, is also not a special feature. Every stair in open air, of even corrugated sheet metal from an ordinary industrial building, will have a similar reflection pattern.
True. But I'd also wonder though - would it be such an extraordinary claim to suggest some _were_ intentional? You don't need mathematical physics and a supercomputer simulating wave equations to design something acoustically, just intuition for how sound is affected as things are moved about, shapes are changed, etc. The fact that people designed musical instruments for ages is sufficient proof of this principle ... why couldn't they have done that on larger scales, too? Precisely inspired _by_ hearing the very thing you mention - how that sound bounces and alters within a room. The question is, what would _indicate_ an intentional configuration for acoustics, and on what reason would we take it and not something else as evidence for such?
@@shimrrashai-rc8fq They aren’t saying it isn’t, it’s just not advanced knowledge.
@@shimrrashai-rc8fq You are correct that a higher degree of understanding physics is not required to make use of principles which can be discovered experimentally. But sometimes people turn this reasoning around.
@@shimrrashai-rc8fq I mean the way you prove that something was intentionally designed for any specific use is by showing that it was used like that. For example we know that churches were specifically designed to have good acoustics because it is discussed by the people building them and singing is common in churches. But there's no reason to believe that the Giza pyramids were designed to have some specific acoustic properties since they would have been sealed upon completion so were never used for that purpose.
Pseudo-archeology really grinds my gears. As if it isn't challenging enough to get the public to understand the past
Because ancient people weren’t working towards a future as they built our “past”
To bad this guy is spreading a fallacy or two, himself, then.
A fallacy which a scientist can correct.
An author turned journalist who just asks questions will not make scientific or logical fallacies.
They must first engage in the scientific process to make scientific errors which can then be corrected.
Scientists are not tasked with resolving the problems of pseudoscience. A professional pseudoscientist must do that.
@letyvasquez2025 this guy says he's an archeologist and teacher. It's his responsibility to spread truth not narrative.
Teach him the truth so that he can properly share it.
Unless you think teachers can’t continuing learning…
Now I really want to see a paper submitted to (and summarily rejected by) a legitimate historical that just cites the author's dreams as sources.
It's interesting how Chris Dunn shows us a jar that he says can ONLY be made on a modern equipment while being surrounded by the modern equipment that could make it.
I am delighted to see how your channel has progressed and grown since I first discovered it about almost 3 years ago. Keep going.
Pseudo-archaeology has already moved on to Lunar and Martian archaelogy.
Next up are the asteroids…
Great job, David. It has always amazed me that the 'pseudos' turn their noses up at science and archaeology. And then they brazenly turn around and try to use 'science' to prove their points.
the pseudos' have encouraged many people to look into archelogy .
It's also funny that just because a video supports certain beliefs that guarantees all or most of the comments are going to be "on the same team".
I am totally on board with a lot of the "pseudo" sciences but im still here..
@@afterthought3341did they really though? I got into it originally because because i became interested in the topic and that was the most common type of content available
Explaining the origin of these ideas from a critical viewpoint is exactly what is needed.
I really appreciate the way you address this subject now, very informative approach without confrontation against anyone in particular. I am more and more admired of you.
Pseudo Archaeology can be summarized by saying it’s anything that uses the word “precision” more than 3-4 times per sentence.
Thanks for being a light of scholarship in the darkness of the Tartaros of YT misinformation, Dr Miano 👏
I was so lucky to have an anthropology professor 50 years ago who was well ahead of his time. He was a vociferous opponent of cultural diffusion. He was a proponent of the idea of cultural analogies. Similar ideas, concepts and practices would by their nature be a result of solving similar problems. After all, humans are humans regardless of where they reside.
When I was a History major, someone asked me about archeology. I said I'm not that interested in pottery.
*It's hard to undo the mess created by the likes of Erich von Däniken and his successor, Graham Hancock.*
At first i was put off by your use of air quotes; later, watching you lean into the camera, I thought, "I'd hate to run into this guy at a party." Finally, though, I gave you a very rare thumbs up, because you were correct on every point and supplied good information, such as the Moh scale. I'm a life-long student of pre-contact South American cultures, live where they lived, and dealing with people influenced by guys like Brien Foerster is a price for walking into that room. I have the forensic tools to deal with such people but I'm rarely sure that I have convinced them, and it's nice to run into someone who can make the case with such brevity and clarity.
Nice vid, Dr M. Please continue calling out the spoofers and their tactics.
Hyperdiffusionism has also been used to justify imperial ambitions by bringing "civilisation" to the "barbarians".
Yes, discarding past theories is a cautionary tale, of putting too much validity in the current paradigm. Open mindedness, objectivity tempered with prudent skepticism should be attitude in science.
I really appreciate the way you approach this. It honestly feels like therapy when you feel surrounded by the scientifically illiterate. You do good work, and your name is David. Can't ask for better.
ANOTHER GREAT VIDEO DAVID THANKS
Thanks for the clarity, Doc. No nonsense.
Well, what can one expect from a seasoned lecturer who has critiqued one too many papers 😁
Awesome job as always, Doc Miano 👌🏼
He's pre-seasoned? Yikes, I hope the cannibals don't read the comments!
Soo happy you're covering this!!!!
Thank you for this great educational service! So much misinformation floating around the internet. Sending this to my children! Please keep up the good work!
I think one of the points you made should be underscored...that being that the folks who are pushing these sorts of alternative theories often cherry pick their data, ignoring any data that contridicts their theory. One that I always think of is how they can talk about how some ancient piece of architecture could only be made using advanced tools or lost technology...while literally ignoring the pounding stones right next to half finished examples of the same thing. I've seen this over and over throughout the world, from the Middle East to the New World, to Asia to a certain woo shrouded island in the Pacific discovered by Europeans on an Easter morning. The evidence for how these things were made is there...but it is ignorned. There are plenty of experimental archeologiests would also be happy to demonstrate how to make these things, but they aren't consulted...instead, it's always 'experts' who, as you say, appeal to authority. I think a lot of these guys are playing logical fallacy bingo.
To be fair, I suspect that's more because that they _don't_ notice the pounding stones because they do not have access to a suitably comprehensive set of photos. They probably go for something from a _pop_ magazine and that's it.
It works both ways. That's why two camps formed.
I've recently been working at Alfred Watkins old house. Being oldish I remember the ley line craze in the 70's. It was fun but you could draw loads with just an OS plan.
The craze began in England, where the idea was that you could find ley lines by looking for lines that crossed lots of religious sites and/or bodies of water. Know what’s full of religious sites and bodies of water? England.
I once had a project where I had to count all the archaeological sites on an OS map. It’s crazy how much stuff we have in the UK
Nice coverage of the various "pseudos". The "precision" one is particularly apt.
Another brilliant one Dr. Miano. Keep em coming, hopefully some of the pseudos will watch your channel if they can tear themselves away from Ben's magic flute.
dam professor, you did a great job with this video. Everything was concise and well substantiated with the least amount of words necessary. You could have easily made this twice as long and even clipped in the scammers passing off pseudoscience for $$$. I wish you had some more exposure on other informative channels and even do a guest appearance in some shows with you easy to follow logic and well practiced dictation.
Would love a follow up: what assumptions do we hold today may be more tentative than what they seem?
There was a really funny demonstration preformed by an English Archeologist demonstrating the absurdity of "Lay lines" and illusory pattern perception. The Archeologist posted a map of the UK with fixed points joined by lines,to create all sorts of Geometric shapes.... only to reveal the fixed points,were infact McDonald's Restaurants.
The list deconstructing Precisionism blew my mind. I feel like my thought process just leveled up.
Great lighting, great sound, great content, this is a great channel! 1M subs, where you at!?!?!?
Precisionism as an argument makes no sense to me "This thing is made very well". Yeah, people in the past could do things well, what a shock.
Ley lines, if you draw a line between two points on the globe, there's now a line there.
A lot of ley lines also just happen to demonstrate that populations were generally concentrated around the same lattitudes, almost as if the Earth has different biomes and some are more hospitable than others.
You touched on this briefly but there's a few videos on how to spot pseudoscience. Appeal to authority is one, but also there is the appeal to simplicity or "what makes sense". The Martymer had a good run down in some of the clues.
Your videos are always a treat. Your lighting looks way better btw. Well done
Magister you’re a Keeper thanks for this one ! It’s a masterpiece. 🖖👍
My favorite example of pareidolia is the "Face on Mars™"
The shadows do look very much like those of a giant sculpture. When you look at the more recent photo, you understand why.
Hey what is that trademark for lol?
@@julietfischer5056 Yes, it's a mountain. I wish it would be visited, though. It looks like an interesting mountain! Perhaps with water gulleys, so perhaps aliens, at least little alien microbes anyway, or fossils from them if nothing else, _are_ there just not in the way one might have thought. Not to mention its pop cult significance would seem to potentially gather enthusiasm for such a mission at least among those who are not wedded to an overly naive interpretation of it.
@@shimrrashai-rc8fq You should watch Elderfox Documentaries. It will amaze you the places the rover has visited, places far more interesting than the mountain, at least in my opinion. That channel is a wealth of spectacular images and footage.
Me too...but I watched Library of the untolds new mars video..... it's part of a bigger picture the alignments around it are identical to things here..check it out..
Fantastic stuff. Keep up the good work.
Another fantastic video. I work in a... let's say not-well-understood field and am constantly encouraging people to define their terms well, to set out their arguments in a very logical way, etc. This video goes a long way to help me better understand your other great videos on pseudo-archeology. Those are my favs, btw.
Aliens, nothing but aliens.
Aliens all the way down to the bottom
Of our bottoms!@@johngriffiths118
Love your videos! Keep spreading knowledge ❤🔥
I feel the same way.
Good stuff. Thanks for doing this.
This is probably one of your best videos in a while.
Much of this was fine and good warning against dangers like seeing patterns where they don’t exist. I felt your bit on accuracy of artifacts made very dubious statements indeed. Mediaeval cathedrals are magnificent but not precise. The precision of an artificer is indeed limited by both their skill and the tool. This seems obvious, to me, at least. It seems absurd to argue, as I took you to be doing, that an artificer could achieve an extreme level of precision just through skill alone. The precision possible is constrained by the technique. In some cases the technique used does seem to be undetermined (e.g. for the famous stone pre-dynastic vases you featured), and I’d like someone to discover how they did it because the precision seems quite remarkable for the period they date from. Finally, the criticism of appeal to authority is wonderful but, dare I say, that is what archaeologists and historians themselves often fall back on when responding to unwelcome challenges from outsiders.
Medieval cathedrals are extremely precisely engineered, they're blindly engineered, but they are the product of rigorous selection that creates an artificial impression of precision by virtue of the fact that if they screw up they just fall down in the process of construction.
@@sampagano205 No, Sam. They are not precise in the same way that the vases featured briefly in the video are precise. Cathedrals did not have to be built to exact dimensions in order to be robust and to have the right aesthetic impact. Of course, the scale of the object is very different, but we are talking about very different orders of precision. I think you were perhaps interpreting precision differently from what I meant.
Keep shining the light on the pseudo-science cults.
especially if you gain an audience with pier reviewers
Thanks for keeping it 💯
Major lighting update, looks great!
Hear, hear! Love the video! Love the corduroy! I always squint when they say that legend/story is history with advanced technology. And I sigh when they read a description from said legend/story and then try to compare the description to an iPad, a cell phone, or a rocket. Don't fall for the "history in this ancient story some old guy wrote" trick!
Oh, heck. I was watching your video and missed my bus. Good thing I'm not working today. 🤪
Oh no!
Oh, it's Sunday too. I didn't realize. Retirement is good. @@WorldofAntiquity
Great upload again David.
Keep up the good work / science.
Couldn’t many of your points on “pseudo-archaeology” be equally applicable to those seeking to debunk pseudo-archaeology? I’ve heard some really piss-poor arguments against some topics that don’t rely on science at all, but devolve quickly into personal attacks. “This person is an idiot and you are an idiot for being entertained by them,” the Potholer debate style. Don’t get me wrong, I am a big fan, Dr. Milano.
in my country heads of space program , PM , various ministers likes to remind everyone now and then that we were the once who gifted rest of the world civilisation , science and everything else . 😅 but then we were tricked / enslaved and lost it all🤯🤯🤯🤯
What country is that? Sounds like India and its self-obsession !!
@@troydavis1 Some Turkish people are the same way too, but I suppose you could find a group of people like that from any and every couple try around the world lol
Your debunking of bad archaeology videos are my favorite. I wish you would do more of them often, but I get they take a lot of research to do. Every few months I go through the playlist of all your debunking videos, wishing for a new one to be released, lol
Except he didn't debunk a single thing in this video.
Great talk, thank you! The progression from atl atl to bow and arrow in the Americas has always fascinated me. While it certainly and probably could have occurred independently from the eastern hemisphere, I wonder if just one small, unknown, isolated, moment of contact could have introduced it.
Outstanding video, really interesting to break down these approaches and how they came about!
I'm really pleased you are making these videos and challenging assertions about ancient history that do not derive from the academic community. On precision cutting, it seems that one amateur website that has modelled the precision of ancient vases is responding to your prior criticisms by applying their techniques to more vases and also talking to universities about getting access to ancient collections with well-established provenance. In time that could move their assertions towards the standard of evidence you are demanding, but whether it does or not, it seems to me a positive reaction to your criticism and deserving of some respect.
Is there a link you can give to papers that show high machining precision achieved in stonework of medieval origin? It would be helpful to compare that to precision achieved on ancient vases to counter suggestions that "high technology" is required to achieve that. Modern methods of manufacture do in fact turn out high volumes of everyday crockery items with higher precision than their traditionally made counterparts simply because it is more profitable to do so. Precision is an essential to efficient mass manufacture. So your argument that there would be no reason to apply such high technology to churn out everyday items is not necessarily valid.
Read up on Michelangelo. While not medieval, he achieved amazing precision with hand tools during a time when no one will claim he used power tools. Fellows like Hancock and Ben from UnsupportedX often claim that the "mainstream" has the timeline wrong for civilization because the vessels they choose to measure for precision are pre-dynastic. My question for those dudes is: "If mainstream dating isn't accurate, how did you determine when, or during what period these pieces were made? Do you just accept mainstream methods when it's convenient for your chosen narrative?
On that note Hancock has often said that Gobekli Tepe was build around 7000 years before the pyramids or Stonehenge. Doing some grade school math (given that he accepts mainstream dating of GT at 11,600 ybp), that means he also accepts the mainstream dating of the pyramids.
You might like to check out
The Edmund de Unger Fatimid Rock Crystal Project
which will lead you to a number of papers by E. Morero and J. Johns - eg.
The Diffusion of Rock Crystal Carving Techniques in the Fāṭimid Mediterranean
2021 - Elise Morero
The manufacturing techniques of Fatimid rock crystal ewers (10th-12th centuries AD)
2017 - Jeremy Johns, Elise Morero
and this
Seeking Transparency
Rock Crystals Across the Medieval Mediterranean
Edited by Cynthia Hahn and Avinoam Shalem
This might also be interesting
Rock Crystal and the Nature of Artifice in Ancient Rome
2020 - Patrick R Crowley
I found this on youtube
Lecture - "The Magnificent Seven": The Great Fāṭimid Rock Crystal Ewers (Jeremy Johns )
which might help you to decide if Fatimid rock crystal is something you feel interested in.
Your last argument is circular, high precission in every day goods is only desireable because of our system of industrial mass production wherein standardization makes production cheaper. There is nothing inherent about every day goods that makes precision desireable, I don't particularly care if my pot is perfectly circular or looks the exact same as the one the last customer brought so long as I can cook food in it. You can't use the specific demands of an industrial society when talking about pre-industrial societies, that's like saying that the egyptians drilled for oil because oil is used in cars.
I saw a new advance in Great Pyramid woo recently. On twitter someone had claimed that by raising/lowering the blocks of granite in the portcullis to the Kings Chamber, the pyramid could have generated noise, if not actually speak. When I asked for proof, I was of course referred to the work of Christopher Dunn. No stone left unturned, I guess.
Because of course it is common practice to block off instruments with several tons of stone, that obviously makes for great acoustics.
I really liked this video, not simply for the direct information it provides, but also for pointing out the methods and processes that accompany real scientific methods.
Thank you for the video, these things are surely mentioned here and there in videos on other topics, but it's a great idea to make a video focused exactly on fake science. It's a great overview :)
Isn't science just the process of testing ideas?
What is fake about believing something and looking for evidence for your theory?
It is not fake science.
You're talking about crazy people.
Crazy people are just.. different lol bro sick or whatever
Jason, could you give the timestamp in the video where I say that looking for evidence for your theory is fake science?
If I were to add to your list, it would be catastrophism. Invoking spectacular catastrophies, that conveniently erase all evidence of their proposed advanced civilisation. Often ttwisting real events in the process. A favorite seems to be the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis, ignoring both that it has fallen out of favour and that in either case the climatic shifts at the end of the glacial would have been the real killer. In the more absurd end we have the mud flood guys.
Finally they ignore that climatic changes are far more devastating to both ecosystems and society than a big rock falling or a bit of water.
Those catastrophes wouldn’t destroy all the evidence anyways. They would drown or bury the evidence, but that’s it.
@@mrjones2721 Definetly, but ancient civilisations needed to learn their skills from some hyperadvanced empire, they need some way to explain away the lack of any real evidence.
I think exploring different ideas and "what if.." history is a lot of fun but I don't know why they don't just write it as fiction? is the whole concept of an alternative past not as sexy if they don't pretend it's true
Thing is, these folks believe it. For whatever reason, our known ancestors _must_ have been too stupid to do anything more than eat, sleep, and reproduce. There _must_ have been a now-lost super-civilization that taught us everything.
Where did this super-civilization get their knowledge? Either they were extraterrestrials, were taught by ETs, or were just that smart.
I think about the idea of a first-of-its kind civilization that reached a level equivalent to many of the high-level ancient civilizations we know about, and how much influence it might have on other peoples. For some reason, I never come up with 'They gave the world everything.'
Did you get a new camera or lighting? The shots in this video look amazing!
Excellent video and very informative.
I like the titles Pseudo archaeological shows uses. Like they list someone has a doctorate but they often fail to mention what it is in since it isn't something relevant to what they are talking about.
My personal favorite though is when they just say "author". Any idiot can write a book, particularly if you count self published authors.
They try to pretend they have some kind of scientific expertise in the subject, but it is so obvious fraudulent that it is comical.
This guy is such a happy warrior on the side of reason
What a great piece. As clear as it can be said.
Thanks
"Psuedo" - a term applied to anything that differs from the currently accepted orthodoxy.
........ = or is denotes something which may be outwardly similar - yet which upon closer examination proves to be a _faux_ facsimile of something....
Haha, someone agrees with me,
I do not agree with this = it is pseudo 😂
As a of years, I can tell you that because of .
top comment
That was funny 😂
Some of your lines are pure gold, great vid, work and arguments as always. Concerning the pyramids I always say no civilisation could have build any huge stone spherical monuments for exemple, like we don't see any montains that are top down, they all look alike because of physic, not culture..
I like looking at antiquities with eyes open to see what was in the past. The pyramids around the world stump me.
Love to hear some debunking…thank you!!!
Someone needs to take on Randall Carlson. He has a whole following of catastrophism dorks that’s believe his myths about geology. He mixes the facts with the fiction a lot.
@PseudeaEpimetheus what should I be greatful for? Is it falsely spreading flood myths? Or his inability to understand some swamps in the Carolina’s? Or maybe is it how he found Atlantis for sure this time. Give me a break you quacks.
So there was no ice age and sea level has not gone up 430 feet in 5000 years(17,000-11500), billions in climate science and core drilling is all faked. The Minoans did not didn’t die in a tidal wave like 150000 people in the Indian Ocean in 2004!
Sorry simple fact that it happens, just like Japan that saved millions by being prepared before it happened, why because it had happen hundreds of times before!
Resent studies have proven cosmic strike in the mid east destroyed a town around 5000 bc just like a certain story in bible!
Correct. The people we call Minoans didn’t die in a tidal wave.
@@Oddball5.0 did anybody claim that or do you just dont know what tidal wave means?
@@nox5555 There was a post about it. It has now been deleted.
Bravo!! I agree 100%. My only problem is when archeologists fall into similar traps by claiming every unexplained ancient structure was for "ritual" purposes, without proof. I remember laughing when Tony Robinson would roll his eyes on "Time Team" every time "ritual" would come up. Of course some structures were probably used for ritual purposes, no doubt. But not every unexplained or seemingly strange structure.
It seems to me in this case that their archaeological skills can be immaculate but that their standards of logical inference are illicit. That is, they are making claims that do not follow, even though their archaeological methods may be trustworthy and proper.
That’s an old saying that all anthropologists and archaeologists are aware of and now know to avoid. Even on Time Team, it’s very, very rare for someone to suggest something has a ritual use unless the context suggests there’s legitimately a ritual use.
@@mrjones2721 -- Well, I cannot prove you wrong because I haven't seen "ritual" used as an explanation for awhile. But I have seen it on Time Team as late as 2013, which wasn't that long ago.
“Ritual” does not solely mean religious, in anthropology every single action that does not have a directly practical purpose is considered a ritual. Graduation ceremonies for example are an example of a ritual and so graduation caps have a primarily ritual purpose. When you start looking you'll discover that human culture and life is filled and dominated by rituals because rituals serve important social functions.
@@ironcladranchandforge7292 well most of todays structures have some ritual function...
Very interesting, would enjoy videos on each with specifics examples!
Thank you for that 🙏
Modern Spoofers say they rode a rocket ship to the moon and hit a golf ball up there and used magic gravity to git back.
Just hand an inexperienced person a violin and tell them to play a violin concerto. They won’t even be able to play a single note! On the same instrument and expert can make magic.
(I wrote this comment on one of UnchartedX’s videos, and he deleted it! Too offensive I guess.)
Great video! And wonderful picture quality!
I gave him a few more examples like: some oil paint and a blank canvas will never allow an amateur to recreate the Mona Lisa.
And I asked him to carve ANY of the “very crappy” vases out of an easy stone, with any hand tool of his choosing, (this is a very easy challenge compared to the ones he gives) and if HE personally cannot recreate a “crappy” work of art, then he has no right challenging others to do even harder tasks according to his perfection and judgment.
Well done
This is such a great video. Thank you!
great video! This one was fun!
11:33 - and you want your argument accepted, because the counterargument hasn't been published in authoritative journals. In psychology you call this projection.
Funny how you challenge STEM science with almost no knowledge of field.
*you want your argument accepted, because the counterargument hasn't been published in authoritative journals*
Arguments are accepted on their merits.
*Funny how you challenge STEM science with almost no knowledge of field.*
When did I challenge STEM science?
@@WorldofAntiquityYou challenge STEM by simply implying that precision is mainly influenced by skill. So please make me a modern canon using 21st century using a 17th century furnace.
Merits? Nobody in great historical journals has ever looked at this So please assess the paper "Abstractions set in granite" for its mathematical accuracy.
@@N.Eismann *You challenge STEM by simply implying that precision is mainly influenced by skill.*
You're just making things up off the top of your head.
*So please assess the paper "Abstractions set in granite" for its mathematical accuracy.*
Already did. czcams.com/video/Wcl82hQr8xc/video.html
History for Granite used to be good , but now he is a bit whacky too . . . .Graham Hancock is the worst tho . ..
History For Granite has created some excellent Ancient Egyptian architecture and engineering analysis videos. Im curious what have you seen in their content “is a bit whacky”?
The last two hfg videos I watched both overstated the conclusion. I'm a big fan in the long run, and I think the work he is doing is valuable. The level of detail he has achieved in evaluating the structure of the Great Pyramid is awesome. But his evidence doesn't reach the level of certainty that he claims in the videos. Being skeptical, especially of one's own conclusions, is one of the most important aspects of the scientific method. I think he would benefit greatly from working with a team of people who challenged him
@@benchilders571 100 percent agree with your opinion on HFG. And yeah, I had some questions regarding his conclusion on his last (fascinating) video on the so called pyramid shafts.
Invoking graham hancock at the same time as HFG kinda implies theyre remotely on the same spectrum
One thing that always bothers me is when people are like “Oh we can't build this type of thing today”, like we absolutely can it's just that we don't want to because we have different concerns. Like we could easily build something that dwarfs the Egyptian pyramids if wanted to, we regularly move dirt and rock in volumes that dwarf the pyramids, it's just that we don't have any Pharoah god kings around so we'd generally consider it a waste to build. Roman concrete is another example, like the reason why modern concrete isn't as durable as Roman concrete isn't because we don't know how to build it anymore, it's because we generally don't build structures to last for hundreds or thousands of years and so instead optimize our concrete for strength. Plus we've gotten so good at construction that it's now so cheap that it doesn't need to stand for very long, this is arguably a problem for the enviroment though. One that's really funny is cathedrals or European neoclassical architecture because like it's literally still being built or is extremely recent, like less than a century old.
Yes. Our culture - and hence the impetus for our creating things - is premised upon = _"consumption."_ So we build things as you say with the intention that they will eventually be replaced by something else. The ancients however created things with a view they might "last forever".
On the surface that of course is not practical. In so much however as things like religious beliefs etc. were their motivations for doing so then creating temples or tombs which might last centuries or longer served their purpose.
Ancient goal: _"I want to be remembered"_
Modern goal: _"I am trying to make some money"_
@@varyolla435 Yeah our thinking is fundamentally different from all cultures that came before us because we happen to live in the most unusual period in human history. This is why we often have a hard time understanding those cultures and why anyone interested in history needs to put a lot of effort into understanding past cultures on their premises. Our society is underpinned by ideas of progress, productivity and science that are completely new and would have been completely foreign to almost all preceeding cultures.
I just can't get over the "we can't build the pyramids" when there is a bass pro shop inside of a massive glass pyramid in Tennessee.
Love your work. Cheers