Jack by the hedge
Safely Ignored
Oh, well that's much more plausible.
You mean according to the admitted AI slop you posted without thinking?The report did not say that it was flooded. It was sealed.
They found it when the waters receded.
The report did not say that it was flooded. It was sealed.
They found it when the waters receded.
From the YouTube page:
There is an image of Joe Rogan on the thumbnail and a flag that says "altered or synthetic content". Two immediate red flags.
I've had a quick look at that channel and the entirety of its content is clickbait pseudo-history bull ◊◊◊◊.
Youtube videos made with AI and carrying upfront disclaimers that they are pure fiction, no less.
Well given that it never happened, "they" didn't actually find anything to do with religion or anything else.
There is a version of this that could be true and that story would be super cool some Sumerian crypt or what not being discovered. Nope, just B movie BS. Disappointing.
I watched the video. I have seen some of the footage before, in a completely unrelated cave in a totally different location. This video is fake.
"The content presented in our videos is intended solely for entertainment purposes. While we may draw upon facts, rumors, and fiction, viewers should not interpret any part of the content as factual or definitive information."
Indeed. The story is a hoax. But @Rusty Tyler doesn't care about facts.
In fact many caves have been previously found under the Euphrates, especially given it's drying up.
Sigh. It's a childish and silly hoax. Fit only for god botherers and other idiots.
Except that they didn't.
It's all nonsense. Do you honestly still believe the video is real?
Admitted?You mean according to the admitted AI slop you posted without thinking?
By the makers, who say their videos are for entertainment purposes only.Admitted?
By whom?
I strongly suggest you read P. J. Denyer's post immediately above yours. It summarizes the myriad posts in this thread that you have missed.Admitted?
By whom?
I strongly suggest you read P. J. Denyer's post immediately above yours. It summarizes the myriad posts in this thread that you have missed.
Or intentionally ignored in order to continue to promote your fantasies,
The YouTube channel itself.Admitted?
By whom?
No.So you don't read all posts?
That's ridiculous.The YouTube channel itself.
There's nothing to "debunk." They produce entertainment. They explicitly say they produce entertainment. They say they use AI to synthesize entertaining content. They say right on the channel that their videos should not be considered depictions of fact.That's ridiculous.
Why would they debunk themselves?
Then stop opening new threads to discuss new things. You don't get to beg off because your Gish gallop isn't working.It's a lot to keep up with.
That's ridiculous.
Why would they debunk themselves?
This is a work of fiction. Names, characters, business, events and incidents are the products of the author’s imagination. Any resemblance to actual persons, living or dead, or actual events is purely coincidental.
That's a common disclaimer.The YouTube channel itself.
I think they have to do that to cover themselves legally.Have you never seen statements like-:
They're in every fiction book, TV series, movie, etc, etc....
They specifically tell you not to do what you're doing. How much more plain can it get?That's a common disclaimer.
Probably found on all their videos.
...so that people don't mistake their entertainment as fact and try to use it as evidence.I think they have to do that to cover themselves legally.