Michael Shermer vs. "alternative history" Hancock and Crandall

[Roboramma]

This thread is about the video...

It certainly is, and I didn't ignore any part of the 1.5 hours of that video that I watched.

If you want to limit the discussion to those who've seen the entire video I suspect you won't have much of a discussion at all.

As I said, if you think there was anything actually worth discussing it I am happy to actually have a discussion. I'm not willing to waste 2 more hours of my life in the likely vain hope of finding it, but if you present anything meaningful from the video I won't ignore it.

As I said, if you actually speak english this should be very easy to understand. If you are operating under some strange definition of ignoring things which includes things that you haven't actually seen, well, I know some good english teachers.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

Don't bother listening to the podcast. In the menorah Atlantis thread he wouldn't discuss the evidence before we watched an hour and a half documentary. When several posters watched it and asked him questions about it, he still refused to discuss it, instead pointing us back to the documentary because we were supposedly ignoring the real answers.

 

[marplots]

Don't bother listening to the podcast. In the menorah Atlantis thread he wouldn't discuss the evidence before we watched an hour and a half documentary. When several posters watched it and asked him questions about it, he still refused to discuss it, instead pointing us back to the documentary because we were supposedly ignoring the real answers.

Which mirrors what Hancock was doing during the actual interview. Hancock would insist that Shermer "didn't know the material" and thereby couldn't make a specific case (as opposed to the general), but when Shermer did manage to push back with stuff in the actual book, Hancock dodged by saying, "I'm just reporting what other scientists have done." Meaning, of course, Hancock didn't think he had to defend anything at all.

 

[King of the Americas]

It certainly is, and I didn't ignore any part of the 1.5 hours of that video that I watched.

...

But that means you MISSED over half of the evidence for the claims being made!

AND the first half was just Graham bitching about how the Skeptic magazine has mis-characterized him. To which Shermer apologizes and offers to print a retraction.

Is this why you quit watching?

 

[King of the Americas]

Don't bother listening to the podcast. In the menorah Atlantis thread he wouldn't discuss the evidence before we watched an hour and a half documentary. When several posters watched it and asked him questions about it, he still refused to discuss it, instead pointing us back to the documentary because we were supposedly ignoring the real answers.

Telling people to ignore evidence is bad form, Porpoise of Life, terribly BAD FORM.

 

[King of the Americas]

Which mirrors what Hancock was doing during the actual interview. Hancock would insist that Shermer "didn't know the material" and thereby couldn't make a specific case (as opposed to the general), but when Shermer did manage to push back with stuff in the actual book, Hancock dodged by saying, "I'm just reporting what other scientists have done." Meaning, of course, Hancock didn't think he had to defend anything at all.

What claim are you talking about? Which quote did Hancock 'fail' to defend?

Could you offer anything specific, or are you just gonna offer general attacks?

 

[marplots]

What claim are you talking about? Which quote did Hancock 'fail' to defend?

Could you offer anything specific, or are you just gonna offer general attacks?

I'm giving my impression of the interaction. You mentioned one instance just a few posts above - where Hancock talks about miscitations, as if he didn't quote the authors he quoted.

You want a timestamp? Will that actually fix anything? I sincerely doubt it. If you can't remember what Hancock was up to, how is a timestamp going to help? I suggest you listen to the podcast again with a more critical ear.

 

[Porpoise of Life]

What claim are you talking about? Which quote did Hancock 'fail' to defend?

Could you offer anything specific, or are you just gonna offer general attacks?

Wait, after five pages of refusing to present an argument and insisting people listen to a 3.5 hour interview that will totally reveal everything, you suddenly need specific quotes when the tables are turned?

I suggest you listen to the podcast again with a more critical ear.

 

[Roboramma]

But that means you MISSED over half of the evidence for the claims being made!

AND the first half was just Graham bitching about how the Skeptic magazine has mis-characterized him. To which Shermer apologizes and offers to print a retraction.

Is this why you quit watching?

In the part I watched Shermer said that Skeptic would be printing an article about him. They then showed that apparently the author of the article had pre-published it on some other website, of which Shermer was unaware. Hancock then attacked Shermer for publishing the article because of certain complaints he had about it. Shermer A) Hadn't published it yet, and may not even have read it. B) Wasn't given a chance to actually read it to see if Hancock's complaints were valid. Instead he took a few out of context quotes that may or may not have been accurate portrayals of what was said in the article and whose validity wasn't even discussed.

Shermer never offered to print a retraction. Why would he print a retraction for something that he hadn't printed?

And no that wasn't why I stopped watching.

 

[TX50]

The Interview mentioned a flood that passed over Cairo covering it in 120 feet of water.

I think the 3500 BC date is still too late.

But it rains, and rains hard, on the Giza plateau even today. August and September are the wettest months. Why is water erosion on an ancient monument a "mystery"?

 

[marplots]

47:55 - Hancock is refuting the claim in the skeptic article that "no academic would debate me." But his only example is where an academic (Zahi Hawass) actually walked out of a debate after delivering a diatribe against Hancock. Somehow, this transforms into an academic who debated him. Just the opposite of what actually happened.

49:00 - Hancock uses the dodge of agreeing with one part of Jesus Gamara's (SP?) theory about megaliths but denies the more radical part (alternate physics on gravity) while doing so. Gamara explains the "anomalous" theory of the Incas while Hancock just puts another spin on it, keeping what he likes and dismissing the rest.

50:12 - "I do not make that claim..." It's from the book of Enoch. If he isn't making the claim, why is it in the book at all? I know why, because Hancock is going to do with this book what he did with his previous work - when it doesn't pan out, claim that his views "evolved" and he wasn't really saying what he said in this book. Always a moving target.

By the way, have you read some of Hancock's previous work?

 

[King of the Americas]

In the part I watched Shermer said that Skeptic would be printing an article about him. They then showed that apparently the author of the article had pre-published it on some other website, of which Shermer was unaware. Hancock then attacked Shermer for publishing the article because of certain complaints he had about it. Shermer A) Hadn't published it yet, and may not even have read it. B) Wasn't given a chance to actually read it to see if Hancock's complaints were valid. Instead he took a few out of context quotes that may or may not have been accurate portrayals of what was said in the article and whose validity wasn't even discussed.

Shermer never offered to print a retraction. Why would he print a retraction for something that he hadn't printed?

And no that wasn't why I stopped watching.

Exactly, that has NOTHING to do with the evidence of the claims Hancock and his cohort produced. The fist 1.5 hours isn't the meat of that presentation.

You ignored what we are here to discuss.

 

[Roboramma]

Given the way you've misconstrued everything that happened in the part of the video that I did watch I find highly it doubtful that your construal of the latter part of the video is accurate. But if you want to discuss it feel free to actually start discussing it.

You might start by replying to Marplots.

 

[King of the Americas]

Given the way you've misconstrued everything that happened in the part of the video that I did watch I find highly it doubtful that your construal of the latter part of the video is accurate. But if you want to discuss it feel free to actually start discussing it.

You might start by replying to Marplots.

No.

Do your own work.

 

[Shepherd]

This might be a useful summary of the subjects touched upon throughout the podcast:

http://jrefan.com/the-joe-rogan-exp...-hancock-randall-carlson-and-michael-shermer/

 

[Roboramma]

No.

Do your own work.

?

Marplots made very specific criticisms of the actual things said in the podcast. Again, if you aren't actually interested in discussing the podcast that's fine, but "do your own work" is a complete non-sequitur here.

It's also interesting to me that when I explained how you lied about what was actually said in the podcast your response was "exactly".

 

[King of the Americas]

47:55 - Hancock is refuting the claim in the skeptic article that "no academic would debate me." But his only example is where an academic (Zahi Hawass) actually walked out of a debate after delivering a diatribe against Hancock. Somehow, this transforms into an academic who debated him. Just the opposite of what actually happened.

And this is where, 'you' should have provided video of the actual interaction between Hawass and Hancock...

49:00 - Hancock uses the dodge of agreeing with one part of Jesus Gamara's (SP?) theory about megaliths but denies the more radical part (alternate physics on gravity) while doing so. Gamara explains the "anomalous" theory of the Incas while Hancock just puts another spin on it, keeping what he likes and dismissing the rest.

Yes, I do the same thing.

50:12 - "I do not make that claim..." It's from the book of Enoch. If he isn't making the claim, why is it in the book at all? I know why, because Hancock is going to do with this book what he did with his previous work - when it doesn't pan out, claim that his views "evolved" and he wasn't really saying what he said in this book. Always a moving target.

Yes, and herein lies my issue with Hancock, but HERE'S WHY HE DOES IT:

Actual "God(s)" ...VERY VERY 'freak people out'- taboo subject. If someone were to say, "I have absolute proof of (*Insert X-files episode title here*) the general public would freak-the-hockey-puck-out.

Thor is cool on the silver screen or blue ray, but in real life such a being/reality would be unacceptable...a national threat...cause for mass panic...you know, all the worst parts of the bible...satan risen...that sort of thing.

By the way, have you read some of Hancock's previous work?

So, I recall several instances, including herein where Hancock says, "I'm just a reporter!"

You wrote it, what does it mean???

*"It means whatever the hell you want it to mean mother-kisser!" lol

Yes, I've read, Fingerprints of the Gods, Chariots of the Gods, and I am intimately familiar with the claims of those who say we have, were, or are being visited by "aliens"...and I dismiss those claims 'now' too. I think they were leaps, without proper evidentiary support. Modern re-interpretations, better understandings, new evidence, all of these should allow us to change our minds, reach new conclusions, and not adhere to old dogma.

*I'm still looking for the debate between Hancock and Zawass.

 

[King of the Americas]

But it rains, and rains hard, on the Giza plateau even today. August and September are the wettest months. Why is water erosion on an ancient monument a "mystery"?

Because it has always been there, in every picture, unchanged, or 'repaired.'

The erosion is not modern, in any sense of the word.

There is in fact evidence that the entire Giza site was covered with 120 feet of water...who built it, when, and why is, would expectedly be gone thereafter.

What evidence would 'you' personally employ to date the Sphinx?

 

[King of the Americas]

Hancock appears correct to me...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ziu2ygE_Wc

 

[King of the Americas]

Hawass is not a scientist, he's a dogmatist.

That was in fact a "refusal to debate"...