Ancient Apocalypse...

[MoeFOH]

With all the rain here in Brisbane etc we might be in the midst of a modern apocalypse, so I guess it's fitting that I've gone down a rabbit hole on this stuff... this Netflix series, Ancient Apocalypse, which has been out for a while now, started to rope me in again over the break and led to me going down this whole Joe Rogan/Graham Hancock/Randall Carlson/Egyptology/Ancient History path... all of which fascinates me. 

I don't know exactly what to make of Graham Hancock or his theories, and I don't really care, but I admit to liking him and his approach and how it ramps up interest in these fields of knowledge amid new discoveries and subversive elements. 

Who's watched this series? Other related shows, etc? Thoughts on the theories? 

 

[JohnS]

The rain lately in Queensland in the last month...unbelievable. I hope January brings more stable weather!

[MoeFOH]

20 hours ago, JohnS said:

The rain lately in Queensland in the last month...unbelievable. I hope January brings more stable weather!

Yeah, not to angle this down a climate change path at all, but the weather pattern is unusual... experienced plenty of years where a prolonged bout of summer rains hit, but this has been storm after storm, back to back, some quite violent. I can't recall that sort of pattern before. But quite possibly I'm just suffering a bout of selective memory. 

[Drguano]

From the Minnesota State Department of Natural Resources home page (https://www.dnr.state.mn.us/climate/climate_change_info/climate-trends.html😞

"Minnesota's climate already is changing rapidly and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. Temperatures are increasing -- especially in winter -- and larger, more frequent extreme precipitation events are occurring.

Substantial warming during winter and at night, increased precipitation, and heavier downpours already have affected our natural resources, and how we interact with and use them. The decades ahead will bring even warmer winters and nights, and even larger rainfalls, along with the likelihood of increased summer heat and the potential for longer dry spells."

This year we had a brown Christmas with a high temp 0f 54°F (12°C)...

[El Presidente]

16 hours ago, MoeFOH said:

Yeah, not to angle this down a climate change path at all, but the weather pattern is unusual... experienced plenty of years where a prolonged bout of summer rains hit, but this has been storm after storm, back to back, some quite violent. I can't recall that sort of pattern before. But quite possibly I'm just suffering a bout of selective memory. 

The weather pattern is straight back to the 70's and 80's for us dyed in the wool Queenslanders 

Storms from the west every other afternoon in summer. Note: the cane toads are back in force!

[99call]

19 hours ago, MoeFOH said:

Joe Rogan/Graham Hancock

I would not trust a single sentence from either of these individuals. 

Largely what seems to be happening of late is is........... bro logic + conspiracy theorists + quack scientists  vs  actual qualified respected scientists. 

Call me old fashioned, but I choose actual qualified respected scientists. 

The other group. i.e. the "bro logic + conspiracy theorists + quack scientists"  are a largely a comfort blanket for those who previously relied on religion to explain the world. 

Over the last 10 years there has been a huge attack on professionals.   It's purpose has been to in-power bullshit artists, and render the electorate confused. 

I choose to trust people who don't print out their own certificates on home computers. 

[rascalmonkey]

It's funny/not-funny how many friends of mine who graduated from high school in the 70's and have been banging nails and drinking beer since are now experts in all sorts of scientific fields thanks to Joe Rogan. 🤔

[MoeFOH]

58 minutes ago, 99call said:

I would not trust a single sentence from either of these individuals. 

Largely what seems to be happening of late is is........... bro logic + conspiracy theorists + quack scientists  vs  actual qualified respected scientists. 

Call me old fashioned, but I choose actual qualified respected scientists. 

The other group. i.e. the "bro logic + conspiracy theorists + quack scientists"  are a largely a comfort blanket for those who previously relied on religion to explain the world. 

Over the last 10 years there has been a huge attack on professionals.   It's purpose has been to in-power bullshit artists, and render the electorate confused. 

I choose to trust people who don't print out their own certificates on home computers. 

That's a fairly forceful view straight out of the gates, Stefan. Have you watched the series? In any case, the specific axe you have to grind seems a little off-target here. 

Graham Hancock is a journalist who writes books on the subject of an alternative pre-history to existing lines of doctrine. I don't know for sure whether he's a quack, charlatan, etc., or simply just a passionate investigative journalist who is amplifying something of significant interest. But I'm willing to first listen to what he has to say before forming an opinion. One of the more interesting core subjects of the series is the impact of the discovery of Gobekli Tepe in Turkey which is causing actual ramifications to existing scientific and pre-history theory. As I said, frankly I don't care if Hancock's overarching theories are right or wrong, they simply help elucidate a highly interesting debate for me. From there, I can do my own research and critical thinking. Science is, after all, an ever-evolving story and often has to correct its own long-held assertions. 

As for Joe Rogan, to me he's just an interviewer. He's a supporter of Hancock, sure. He also interviews Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Keating, Stephen C Meyer, et al... all qualified scientists... should I not listen to anything they have to say because they're being interviewed by Joe Rogan? 

[MoeFOH]

4 hours ago, El Presidente said:

The weather pattern is straight back to the 70's and 80's for us dyed in the wool Queenslanders 

Storms from the west every other afternoon in summer. Note: the cane toads are back in force!

Glad to hear it. My light blue roots showing as this maroon colour grows out... 

To be fair, though, at your age, you do have a few more core samples in the memory bank to draw from. 

 

[Ken Gargett]

4 hours ago, El Presidente said:

The weather pattern is straight back to the 70's and 80's for us dyed in the wool Queenslanders 

Storms from the west every other afternoon in summer. Note: the cane toads are back in force!

absolutely what i was thinking. cricket games lost to rain and storms. the need to mow your lawn every week. humidity out the wahzoo. 

[GoodStix]

@MoeFOH yes watched the series.  Don’t have an opinion on Hancock, but the series was interesting.  Have also seen other programs by archaeologists looking at some of these archeological sites.  It appears that some of these sites/finds are challenging our current understanding of history.  But that’s normal in science; we hold an understanding until new evidence emerges that challenges the current and sometimes leads to a new understanding (and sometimes not).  We used to call that progress 😉.  Our scientific history is rich with examples of researchers who were ridiculed (or worse) and were later proven to be correct.  I suggest perhaps it’s wise to always keep an open mind, with a healthy (not adamant) degree of scepticism.

[MoeFOH]

2 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

the need to mow your lawn every week

It'd be nice to actually have time to start the mower before it rains again. 

[Ken Gargett]

4 minutes ago, MoeFOH said:

It'd be nice to actually have time to start the mower before it rains again. 

absolutely. 

 

[MoeFOH]

13 minutes ago, GoodStix said:

Our scientific history is rich with examples of researchers who were ridiculed (or worse) and were later proven to be correct.  I suggest perhaps it’s wise to always keep an open mind, with a healthy (not adamant) degree of scepticism.

Yes. Careers (scientific ones) have apparently been ruined due to speaking out with an alternative theory. Later proven to be correct. I understand and endorse the need to run a rigorous gauntlet when doing so, otherwise all manner of poppycock would simply clog the gears. But an open mind in an investigative field of any kind is surely a required balancer.

[99call]

55 minutes ago, MoeFOH said:

As for Joe Rogan, to me he's just an interviewer. He's a supporter of Hancock, sure. He also interviews Neil deGrasse Tyson, Brian Keating, Stephen C Meyer, et al... all qualified scientists... should I not listen to anything they have to say because they're being interviewed by Joe Rogan? 

I'm sorry mate, I like you, and lots of the stuff you post is completely on the level. But this is just lazy thinking, I can grant you that maybe pre Spotify Rogan had a slightly reassuring 20% good faith actors, genuinely qualified line up. i.e. people like Dr Brian Cox etc. 

But now, it's just a rightwing mess, churning out nonsense to radicalise weak impressionable people.   

The reality is...is understanding the world is f-cking hard. I'm far too lazy to engage with it properly, but currently there are a multitude of false profits. Peterson, Rogan, Shapiro who are churning out neatly packaged convenient answers...they are all greasy huckster snake oil salesman and sure it feels good to get an 'in' to a new topic or a new flight of thinking, we should all be doing that. Not being stagnant of thought, trying to challenge ourselves, but I think the reality is, is that this world (mainly podcasts and netflix docu-series) has been punctured by bad actors.  

In conclusion, I think we share the same appetite, we both want to learn more of the world, but I think it's f***ing hard, and cant just be uploaded in a series of podcasts by paid up right wing podcasters. It's too convenient a place for people to poison that well. 

On another point. I recently went on holiday in Jordan, and visited many historic sites. At one of them was Jerash, we had the most amazing tour guide you could ever imagine. He had a thick Texan accent, but his Mother was Jordanian. He has spent many years in Texas, but had decided to come back, get his accreditiation, and be a registered guide on the site. Listening to him talk about Hellenistic, Roman and Byzantine periods, it seemed there was nothing he didn't know about it's history of this site. He was a real down to earth, boring, passionate, poor, geek. He f++king knew his stuff. He was truly impressive, the knowledge he had built was not easy, is was hard won, and not available via Netflix. 

I'm sick of people wanting to meddle with subjects that serious scholars have mulled over and studies for decades, like some f-ing stoner idiot is going to stumble upon the answer  during one of his 'chats',  it's just utter bullshit. It's entertaining...at a push, but it's useless bullshit. 

Again, the real heros, we are simply too lazy to know their names or read their books.

 

 

[Lunettesman]

I liked the Netflix series although a bit too theatrical. However, I enjoy graham hangkok s work and theory. Always interesting to listen to a completely different opinion on things. We have seen the past few years that experts agree with whoever fund them... Questioning science is always healthy. When you start not questioning science then it becomes a religion. Is he right or wrong? No idea. But it certainly bring some interesting perspective. 

[99call]

26 minutes ago, GoodStix said:

Our scientific history is rich with examples of researchers who were ridiculed (or worse) and were later proven to be correct.  I suggest perhaps it’s wise to always keep an open mind, with a healthy (not adamant) degree of scepticism.

I can absolutely 100% agree with this. But this also somehow suggests that scientists themselves aren't their own worst sceptics. That's the thing that really boils my piss. People always speculate "Hhmmm yes!, this is a really interesting ground breaking discovery, but we really need to test, and question it's feasibility", like they haven't already been doing that for years themselves. 

[Ken Gargett]

as for hancock, i tend to simply gloss over all the self-appointed experts these days. used to have endless arguments trying to convince people of the error of their ways but realised that a lot of people are simply going to believe what they want, despite all the scientific evidence (or possibly the complete lack thereof). when one of the leading climate change deniers appoints himself as an expert climatologist because he not only finished high school but read the weather on some tinpot tv station for a few years, and people swallow his rubbish, what else can you do. then we have friends who were quoting our own ken ham as an expert. you could not make that up. fortunately he left our shores to build his giant ark and his creationist theme park, but claims the old testament as his evidence against climate change. there is simply no changing the mind of someone who believes him. 

as for hancock, this is a guy (who also writes fantasy and promotes hallucinogenic and psychedelic drugs and who happily admits to being stoned out of his gourd for more than two decades) who is trying to convince people that a comet wiped out a civilisation 12,000 years ago, leaving not a shred of evidence of it or of the civilisation, including craters or carbon dating evidence etc etc, although it did not wipe out anything/everything else? seriously? i suspect the drugs are still in use. perhaps his editor missed the fantasy label and thought he was serious? hey, at least it provides an interesting thread for us.  

[Chibearsv]

Who is Joe Rogan?  Can't anyone host a podcast?  Isn't a podcast just entertainment?  Why give any scientific or historical credibility to any of them?  Isn't that like getting your history education from movie watching?

I'm not trying to pick on Joe Rogan since I've never seen his podcast.  I'm just asking the question since podcasting is just another opinion based social media platform that doesn't deserve to be treated as fact based as far as I know. 

[Ken Gargett]

i should add that i am all for questioning science and for a rigorous examination of their work. but that is completely different from fruit bats promoting themselves and their whackadoodle theories designed to shock, antagonise or simply make them relevant. 

[99call]

2 minutes ago, Chibearsv said:

Who is Joe Rogan?  Can't anyone host a podcast?  Isn't a podcast just entertainment?  Why give any scientific or historical credibility to any of them?  Isn't that like getting your history education from movie watching?

Perfect.   Yes, Yes and Yes

[MoeFOH]

4 minutes ago, Chibearsv said:

Who is Joe Rogan?  Can't anyone host a podcast?  Isn't a podcast just entertainment?  Why give any scientific or historical credibility to any of them?  Isn't that like getting your history education from movie watching?

I'm not trying to pick on Joe Rogan since I've never seen his podcast.  I'm just asking the question since podcasting is just another opinion based social media platform that doesn't deserve to be treated as fact based as far as I know. 

Podcasts can be about anything. They're basically a radio interview/show gone digital. Their content range is boundless. This includes serious debate among experts and qualified people in their field. Brian Cox has a scientific one he features on called the Infinite Monkey Cage. I'm not sure that is considered garbage entertainment simply because it's a podcast. Joe Rogan's just happens to be one of the bigger microphones out there. He interviews all manner of people on all manner of subjects. 

I think the point is to listen first, if you so desire, then judge for yourself if it's something you wish to pursue further as an interest or not. 

[MoeFOH]

23 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

i suspect the drugs are still in use

No need to suspect, he openly admits they are. 

Frankly, as I said, I don't care whether his theories are pure fantasy or not. The underlying commentary (from mainstream and alternative viewpoints) he's provided opens up an interesting line of debate that, putting him aside, contains intriguing questions about currently accepted doctrine. The choice is then yours to take it or leave it. I don't care whether it's a Netflix series, podcast, movie, book, essay, academic paper, poem, song, myth, fantasy, etc etc, that acts as the delivery method to open up your mind to a new line of thought. Surely the key thing is to weigh and consider the content presented, do more research if you so desire, and then draw your own conclusions. 

[99call]

15 minutes ago, MoeFOH said:

do more research if you so desire

This is surely the problem/point though. Actually engaging with real specialists within this field, requires reading books, and people simply do not want, or can be bothered to do this. 

Two things I would question you on this topic.   

1, What would someone possibly stand to benefit if they managed to disrupt largely accepted logic on ancient history, science?

2, if you were going to spread propaganda in the modern day, how would you do it?

[MoeFOH]

8 hours ago, 99call said:

1, What would someone possibly stand to benefit if they manage to disrupt largely accepted logic on ancient history, science?

2, if you were going to spread propaganda in the modern day, how would you do it?

1. Re ancient history: well, surely it's important that it's correct, right? Otherwise, why have it at all? In the scenario your question poses, accepted logic is just as much fantasy as an alternative theory. Re science: Pluto... Copernicus... to name a couple of instances. 

2. If I was of the mind, by any means necessary.