I majored in archaeology (specifically the archaeology of Mesopotamia and Iran - home to some of the world's oldest civilizations), and I'm highly skeptical of the idea of much earlier civilizations. I don't say that it's impossible. I don't immediately label the guy a conspiracy theorist. My first, second and third thoughts are: what's the evidence? Show it to me. Having one's mind changed about something significant is actually quite a thrilling experience. But for me at least that only happens when solid evidence or a superior chain of reasoning is presented. Also, fwiw, I don't think skepticism about WMD was as rare or as stigmatized as you claim. I remember being highly skeptical about them, and had plenty of company in that stance. I also remember tuning in to hear Colin Powel's statement about them. I respected him greatly and thought he had a lot of integrity. When he said they existed, I was surprised but willing to take his word on that when I probably wouldn't have taken anyone else's. To this day I wonder whether he lied or had been lied to. Obviously, that was a case of having to take someone's word for it, or not. No independent verification or research was available to me. I wasn't surprised at all to find out they had never existed.
@MoneyHarmonyJourney
Жыл бұрын
I also don't feel like I really believed in the whole 911 story or fall out regarding WMD. Hey, if you are interested in learning more about ancient civilizations Greg Brayden talks about how much archaeological evidence has been dug up which shows carbon dated artifacts which are things like tools for example and point to human civilizations which far pre-date the official timeline of human civilization. Too many examples that just end up in the proverbial scientific "too hard basket". Since I do not have formal training in archaeology, I would be interested to know what evidence exists to prove the timeline of human civilization that is currently put forward as fact? And although it may "point to" certain dates, does that conclusively exclude other possibilities?
@katehunter538
Жыл бұрын
@@MoneyHarmonyJourney Archaeology is pretty much always a case of trying to understand a 5000-piece jigsaw puzzle with about 37 pieces. Sometimes you're very lucky and you've got 500 pieces. The archaeological record is always thinner than we'd like, because so very little survives even 100 years, let alone 6000 or 7000. Conditions from place to place determine a great deal of what will survive. Humidity and warm climates will rot most anything. And many cultures pre-dated or never had written language to begin with, so that resource is usually unavailable. The ancient cultures we know most about tend to be in arid climates that naturally allow many things (wood, textile, bone, etc.) to be preserved, AND they left behind writing that survived and can be deciphered. So what I'm saying is that archaeologists are constantly looking at scant evidence and asking themselves, what's the most plausible picture we can paint with this evidence? What could be true? What do we know for sure is true or untrue? Why do we believe what we believe about this culture? Is there a better interpretation for the facts we have, or even just a different one? What preconceptions or biases are leaking into our analysis? What are we missing? Archaeology is not a science of its own, but it borrows techniques from many sciences both "hard" and "soft." We can use botany, physics, chemistry, genetic studies, micromorphology, carbon dating, tree-ring dating, metalurgy, stratigraphy, geology, philology, physical anthropology, written records, art history, and on and on. Some of these will give us solid facts, or at least an estimate of a solid fact - a carbon date, a source of a piece of obsidian or metal. Some establish a sequence of events without tying them to a solid date. Others only suggest connections - a linguistic or genetic relationship, a weaving or ceramic technique that shows up elsewhere either earlier or later. As to what proves the timeline of human civilization, you'd have to tell me your definition of civilization. As archaeologists, we looked for three features that defined civilization: monumental architecture or construction, specialization of labor (i.e. not everyone did everything for themselves, but there were trades such as weavers, potters, brewers, smiths, priests, etc.), and writing. Other things had to happen before you had those three things, such as permanent settlements dependent on agriculture. But that was the working definition within archaeology. In some places there is an abundance of evidence for when these things happened (Egypt, Mesopotamia, Greece, China, the Indus Valley). In others, not so much. Again, that's down to the vagaries of climate as well as the particulars of what any given culture may have written on. Paper and bark don't hold up very well. Baked clay and papyrus in dry climates do.
@foxibot
10 ай бұрын
I am also evidence based after being raised by a scientist father who also was a mathematician. So I look for proof and only want facts from my old reporting days. I am shocked at the amount of people in modern times, that refuse or try to rebuke scientific proof or science in general. Or mathematics! Everything is related to mathematics and science. My stepmother studied with the famous classical composer Ernst Von Do Dohnanyi.’ when she was very young & she said liked music because it’s so “mathematical and orderly” I can tell the difference though when someone plays more mechanically as opposed to with more passion and emotion. She was very very good, but I have heard people that are better than her, who play with emotion and passion and you can hear the difference in the way they play as opposed to her.
@Exiled.New.Yorker
Жыл бұрын
**Shrug** I was still in NYC in the era of the Early Oil Wars, and i dont think I knew anybody who actually believed they would find WMD.
@markvicente7
Жыл бұрын
Yeah. In my progressive bubble in LA, everyone was suspicious. But in other parts of the country, very different story.
@dxtxzbunchanumbers
Жыл бұрын
Iraqi WMD was doubted virtually from the start, by reputable people, most notably the CIA agent who investigated the claims (whom Scooter Libby was convicted of illegally exposing, a crime Trump subsequently pardoned). But that's besides the point: WMD doubted from the start because there was no tangible evidence produced, and it did not matter because the administration just wanted to invade. The trick the Bush administration kept pulling was the fallacy of demanding proof of a negative( "show me proof that Saddam *didn't* give Osama bin Laden a bundle of roses!") which unfortunately works in American politics. Demanding proof of the negative also happens to be the same trick Hancock pulls time again and again. "Show me there's proof that some archaeological site *wasn't* built by an advanced race of Atlanteans" --he might as well that if you don't believe in his nonsense, then you are a terrorist. The truth is, he has never produced a single proof of his own theory, even as others do actual digging and science. It would be laughable if it were not also deeply racist toward a number of peoples (American Indians, the Maya, Egyptians, etc.) whose cultural patrimony he cashes in on even as he degrades the actual builders as simplistic mud-hut peoples incapable of building mounds or stacking stones atop one another (they certainly were; I don't think he is).
@kellykremin2779
Жыл бұрын
As I listened, I found myself thinking about something that I've recently realized - people don't seem to understand anymore that more than one thing can be true at the same time.
@emills767
Жыл бұрын
I think about this more and more
@DebbraLupien_AkashicRecords
9 ай бұрын
I'm open to Hancock's theories being true. There are greater truths in the multiverse yet to be discovered. The problem occurs when we think we know it all. What struck me listening to this video was how you're still exploring _What the Bleep_ , just at a higher level of consciousness. The world needs more critical thinking. Your contribution is important. Thank you. 🙏🏻
@MoneyHarmonyJourney
Жыл бұрын
I came over to your channel after hearing your interview with Dr Ramani. I really enjoyed this video about conspiracy theorists. I love how you laid out your argument that believing in something without sufficient evidence is as much a fallacy of thought and a mental shortcut as it is to believe that the thing isn't possible, without considering the evidence. I can see how I have fallen into both camps but also how I feel so much more ashamed and embarrassed about believe in something (a.k.a. being positively dupped) that in skepticism (a.k.a. negatively dupped).
@markvicente7
Жыл бұрын
You make a really good point! (about less shame in skepticism) Thank You!
@abigailjupiter374
Жыл бұрын
Great video. Thanks, Mark, for the work you’re doing.
@markvicente7
Жыл бұрын
Much appreciated!
@Skydog3
Жыл бұрын
Concerning thought stopping techniques, I’ve had the words “satanic cult” lobbed at me for years on social media because I talk about being a Freemason, which is just a fraternity I belong to. Freemasonry offers no path to salvation. We simply use symbolism to teach lessons about how to be a decent man. 7/10/23, a man was killed in front of his lodge because he was a freemason, the video that the killer uploaded showed the killer calling the Freemason a satanic pig and many other lies. At what point should the innocent be concerned? Obviously the guy was a dangerous conspiracy theorist. How can we tell the difference anymore?
@qrebel6006
Жыл бұрын
Are you saying that secret societies don't exist ?
@Ruey-pv7jx
Жыл бұрын
Nah, cults are all busted.
@fbg5678
Жыл бұрын
15:15 This is very vague Mark, this ethereal 'scientific community' that does this and that. In concrete terms, what are you talking about, a note published by a society or what? Did he send a paper to be published in a scientific journal and it was rejected without justification? In your parallel to the american government lies, you (maybe by accident) associate the scientific community to psychopathy, wouldn't it be easier for Graham to be the psychopath? Who is actually seeking fame, fortune and power? But anyway, good vid, I'm liking them. I like to think going down a rabbit hole is just as addictive as anything else, it's like music, gives you tension and relief but in the forms of cognitive dissonance and information, usually information from a subject you don't master. And like any addiction, we are all subjected to it, just like being obese or being manipulated by a narcisist, when you think it could never happen to you that's when it's more likely to happen.
@philliptaylor5386
Жыл бұрын
Yeah, this one may reveal a bias on his part, without really investigating the details involved in the “controversy”. Sometimes, scientists SOUND like they are being closed minded because the body of evidence in support of a position is fairly robust, and the “evidence” of the “alternative theory” has already been completely disproven and the academic community considers the issue “case closed” for good reason. But you would have to really study the field to know why. On the other hand, academics CAN ALSO get stuck in a world view and a narrative and push back on legitimate evidence unfairly for either petty department politics or larger political bias. Because of what is called, “moral hazard” it is almost impossible for any of us outside of these fields to sort out the difference. I think this is the proper way to frame this issue. Presuming “closed mindedness” is presuming the first case doesn’t exist, and falls prey to the dunning Kruger effect. I doubt he (or I or many of us) has the body of knowledge to assess whether the anthropology community is being “closed-minded” or just stuck in the difficulty of explaining how they know what they know. 🤷♂️. I run into this many times around some issues in the field of education. Many of us do in our field of study when talking to someone not steeped in that knowledge.
@fbg5678
Жыл бұрын
@@philliptaylor5386 This first case happens a lot in my field too, and I'm a physicist... There are conclusions that are taken from mathematical reasoning, if you don't know the math the communication becomes VERY hard. At least it's easy for someone to look at a bunch of greek letters and symbols and realize they don't understand it. This must be so much worse in the humanities where each school of thought will have their own concepts and on top of that they use the common language, so we lay people read them and think we understood it. Great comment.
@philliptaylor5386
Жыл бұрын
@@fbg5678 it’s the price of diversification of our knowledge and expertise, I guess 🤷♂️. Thanks, great example. Two guys standing at a whiteboard pointing at symbols I don’t understand - how DO I sort out which one is telling me the truth? This would be an interesting experiment. Get two “professors” to “explain” the math - one a charismatic and captivating speaker, but making stuff up, the other, socially awkward, but who understands the math and explains it. Who do the students believe? I heard graduate students chased Einstein out of the classroom because they thought he was an idiot. Is that true?
@AtypicalPaul
Жыл бұрын
Loving your content
@markvicente7
Жыл бұрын
Thank You!
@HomeFromFarAway
23 күн бұрын
the problem with Hancock is not the idea of previous civilisations. at all. it is the type and level of the technology that he insists exists despite clear ecidence in ice cores and mineral deposits from the time that clearly contradict what should be found if those exact technologies were present.
@storiesneedears
Жыл бұрын
Yes! I have been thinking for quite a while about this phenomena to call anyone questioning anything a conspiracy theorist and came to the same conclusion. People believing every conspiracy theory and those naming anyone not agreeing with mainstream thought a conspiracy theorist are really both lacking critical thinking skills. There is no difference between them apart from the fact that the latter group think they are somehow more intelligent. Having grown up in South Africa under apartheid and seeing the extent of the lies we were told by the government, the schools, the churches, the newspapers and how effective the brainwashing was, I have become the most skeptical person around. I can see the utter nonsense in many conspiracies, but also how that term is used to hide many a wrong by simply naming people asking questions as conspiracy theorists. Sometimes I despair that we have lost all critical thinking skills and with that we turned the world into black and white thinking. PS; I saw What the bleep do we know when it came out, loved it but never knew it was produced by a South African
@jettantonio7472
Жыл бұрын
It's not so much what people believe that is the problem it's the fact that some people are so dogged in the way that they try to infringe their beliefs upon others whether it be a conspiricy theory or religion. If I say I dont believe what you do then stop trying to force it down my throat.
@peternystrom921
Жыл бұрын
I never ever seen any of this exempels online or irl. Its always about aliens, babies etc not normal conspirasies.
@big_zzzzz
Жыл бұрын
Lighting and Studio setup is looking 🔥
@markvicente7
Жыл бұрын
Thanks! It's been evolving!
@JolynJessica
4 ай бұрын
dont know if He is legit or not, but I watched the age of wonder here on KZitem a while back, by Richard Forte (Four billion years of life on earth) it's about science, evolution and such. He mentioned that reef dying has occored before, because fossil of tottaly different ecosystem that we know today were found. wich makes it a possibility, that maybe there could have been more before our "known" take on the history of our Planet, civilisation and evolution.
@michaelhagerman7829
4 ай бұрын
🤔👏🤔👏🤔👏🤔👍👍
@JeffFinley
Жыл бұрын
I have been ridiculed and gaslit by "smart" people who "lost respect for me" because I entertained fringe ideas for awhile. I didn't understand what was so wrong to explore the paranormal, spiritual, or conspiratorial. I understand their intent was well meaning, to prevent me from going too far down the rabbit hole or getting brainwashed into a cult. They preferred to stay at a safe distance and laugh at fringe theories, where I felt curiosity and compassion. But many cults do have a lot of conspiratorial beliefs behind their ideology and helps establish the us vs them dynamic. And since a lot of conspiracy stuff "sounds true" it can be easily "peddled" by charismatic fear-mongers and grifters that do take advantage of genuine truth seekers.
@markvicente7
Жыл бұрын
Definitely a concern!
@MoneyHarmonyJourney
Жыл бұрын
Mainstream beliefs are also a kind of a cult like thinking...cults don't have to be small and outlandish to be cults. Modern western governments are reasonably transparent about how they use information and laws to "nudge" citizens in a particular direction. This is recognized (though I don't really get why) in a Yale self-study course on happiness. Is "nudging" really all that far from "propaganda"? Is selective truth telling all that far from lies?
@Antonella0187
Жыл бұрын
Mark you do realize that Graham Hancock admits to being stoned on Marijuana for many years while formulating his theories and writing his books etc….
@markvicente7
Жыл бұрын
Say it isn't so!!!! Also.... www.britannica.com/topic/drug-cult/History-of-drug-use-in-religion
@Antonella0187
Жыл бұрын
@@markvicente7 kzitem.info/news/bejne/mZCm0ouNj4eqe20. From Graham Hancock himself on Joe Rogan admitting to ….
Пікірлер: 47