General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Mark Zuckergecko
Metatron
comments

Comments by "Mark Zuckergecko" (@markzuckergecko621) on "Lex Fridman┃GRAHAM HANCOCK'S Response To His CRITICS Was LEGIT" video.

@Libertinus79 I heard racists drink water too, do you drink water? Do you?????
88
@tom4aot but he's not suggesting that the natives couldn't have built ancient megaliths, he's just pointing out that the evidence isn't that solid, and they could have been built much earlier. That wouldn't denigrate ancient societies in any way, quite the contrary. It would mean they could have been more advanced than we give them credit for. Trying to turn this into a racial issue is incredibly ignorant at best, and maliciously dishonest at worst. Which one are you? Ignorant, or dishonest? At least one of those things is necessarily true.
43
@tom4aot and he's also theorized that ancient European structures like Stonehenge are older than academia suggests, is that racist? Or is it ok, because they were white people?
30
@FINNIUSORION yea the character assassination Graham has been subjected to is reprehensible. Maybe you disagree with his theories, maybe you think he's a quack, but that doesn't mean he's a racist or a bad person, I've seen no evidence that he's bigoted in any way, and from what I've judged about his character he seems like a pretty good dude that's just trying to learn more about the ancient world.
28
@tom4aot pure projection, you're the one arguing in bad faith here, by assuming his motivations that you can't possibly know without reading his mind. I've never heard him even suggest any kind of racial element to his theories, and you haven't either, you're completely fabricating that to fit your narrative.
22
@tom4aot it's a good thing that's not what he's suggesting at all, he's only stating the fact that we don't have any real proof of who built these ancient structures, and how. Right now the running theory is a whole shitload of manpower, and that may be true, but it hasn't been proven.
19
@eddiel7635 you're right, and that would all be completely fine if they were more transparent and told you that conjecture was conjecture. The evidence is so scarce, we have no choice but to speculate about a lot of things, and that's fine, as long as you don't present it as fact.
12
@Bramble451 it doesn't have to be some carefully orchestrated conspiracy, their career and reputation relies on maintaining the status quo of the accepted timeline of civilization. There's not really a whole lot of dots to connect to figure out why they would want to detract anyone that threatens that.
12
@tom4aot you referenced his work, and then editorialized by adding your own speculation about his personal views, which is completely irrelevant to any of his scientific claims. And ironically, you're complaining about him making speculations.
10
@alexanderthegreat4103 I'm getting irritated because you're being dishonest. That would irritate any rational person, no matter who the person in question is.
9
@jjbees7911 there is evidence. You may not think it's enough good evidence to make a conclusion, that's your opinion, but to say there's no evidence is just plain dishonest.
9
@justineczarnobyl9987 it always blows my mind when people act like we have all the answers now, when thats never been true at any point in human history.
9
@tom4aot yes, I don't like liars. I'm not going to apologize for that, or be shamed for it either, if you've happened to notice a lot of people having a similar attitude towards you, it's probably because you lie too much.
8
@Tlevids you couldn't possibly be more wrong, there was absolutely a great deal of pushback in academia for many years after GT was discovered, and yes, new discoveries are embraced, but usually only after a period of pushback and even hostility. And waiting for enough evidence is one thing, but people of your mindset often ignore all inconvenient evidence, because you don't want to feel like you were wrong.
8
@tom4aot something tells me Metatron isn't going to cry about losing subscribers like you.
7
@AFlyingCoconut I never made the claim that everything he's proposed is correct, and you know that I didn't, you're being deliberately dishonest. That seems to be a common thread, Hancock's supporters are generally honest and grounded, his detractors seem to always be dishonest, with very little exception. The ironic part is you're actually helping grant validity to his theories by being so dishonest about him.
7
@Tylwaa yea I can't stand this arrogant attitude like we have all the answers now, when that's never been true at any point in history. People dismiss Hancock's theories just because it "sounds crazy", but a lot of the things that are accepted as scientific fact today sounded crazy when they were first proposed.
5
@justineczarnobyl9987 a lot of people just don't like to admit that they don't know, it makes them feel uncomfortable, probably even scared and helpless. And it's pretty clear that there's a consistent trend just reading through the comments, the people who are supportive or even neutral with Hancock are saying "I don't know, it's worth considering", and his detractors are lying and misrepresenting him, and everyone defending him.
5
@NathanCassidy721 and you can understand where his professional detractors are coming from, they're defensive because their career and livelihood could be in jeopardy if Hancock is right. That doesn't make it right, but it's a logical motivation. As far as just random people on the internet going out of their way to smear and discredit Hancock, that's more of a head scratcher. I guess they just want to feel like they're smarter than everyone else.
5
@Tlevids and Gobekli Tepe was met with quite a bit of hostility when it was first discovered, from the status quo. You're accidentally arguing against your own point.
5
@Tlevids I love how you're accidentally supporting my argument more than your own, this is hilarious.
5
@IrishHermes for claiming to "trust the science", you people sure don't come up with any logically consistent arguments.
4
@SiaWinsi you wouldn't want to challenge the status quo if you're part of the status quo. And that's the people that are Hancock's main detractors.
4
@Intranetusa he could be wrong, but I'm yet to see any real legitimate debunking of all of his claims.
4
@Tlevids and it was discovered in the 1960s, so why do you think it took over 30 years for a legitimately funded expedition?
4
And you can't blame them for being threatened, but it's not my problem if they were wrong. The truth is more valuable than their tenure and reputation.
4
@Tlevids oh look, another appeal to authority. I've only seen about 50 in these comments. It's like you're all reading from a script.
3
@KimKhan this is just an appeal to authority, the person making a discovery doesn't change the validity of the discovery.
3
@jjbees7911 that's just how science works, every new discovery is built on old discoveries, even if it replaces the old discovery. This isn't unethical in any way, it's the only way we can discover new things.
3
@jjbees7911 how am I uncomfortable with saying I don't know? I've never claimed to believe these theories absolutely, there you go putting words in my mouth again. Why do you have to be so dishonest to try and prove your point?
3
@jjbees7911 you're correct, I don't let things go when someone is being dishonest. You can be wrong, you can have an opinion I don't agree with, I'll let that go, but when you lie, and you know you're lying, and you know I know you're lying, I'm not going to let that go until you admit that you're lying.
3
@jjbees7911 you're deliberately misrepresenting Hancock's theories, he's never concluded that the pyramids must have been built by aliens, that's just one theory that's been put out there. And you know that, you're just lying to make it sound more silly than it really is.
3
@Tlevids the fact that it was 30 years between the discovery and excavation is very strong evidence, you can't try to tell me people didn't think it was significant when it was first discovered. They may not have known exactly how significant, but they definitely knew it was significant, immediately.
3
@Aikidjam and it's not like the academically accepted theories about how megalithic structures were built are proven either, their story is basically "a whole lot of people built it. The end." Ok, maybe so, but that doesn't explain how, and why, and why we don't know how they did it.
3
@jjbees7911 there's a lot of evidence that ancient civilizations did have wider contact than we initially thought though, it's not just that they built similar structures, although that is definitely compelling as well. Some of the Nazca lines depict animals that aren't even indigenous to South America at all, at least not as far as our knowledge goes now. So that's a little tough to explain. I'm not claiming everything Hancock proposes is the concrete truth, and he's not either, it's a theory. But at least I'm being honest about it, you're just dismissing it off hand without even listening to what he's saying.
2
@jjbees7911 so how did ancient Inca know about species that don't even live on their continent? You haven't offered an alternative explanation.
2
@jjbees7911 nobody is saying they weren't intelligent enough to conceptualize or build pyramids, people just correctly point out that the logistics of building them with the technology that we know they had is damn near impossible, so the most likely scenario is that we were either wrong about how advanced their technology is, or we were wrong about who built them, and when. That's a very logical assumption. It has nothing to do with intelligence, that's just you being dishonest again. People in the 1700s weren't stupid because they didn't know how to drive a car, because cars didn't exist. You're probably projecting your insecurity about your own low intelligence, that's why you're asserting that it was an intelligence issue when Hancock has never suggested that.
2
@jjbees7911 would you accept paintings on a wall as sufficient evidence if it didn't support the established narrative? Real question.
2
@gengiz80 difference is we do have proof that we landed on the moon, there isn't any proof of how ancient civilizations built megalithic structures. Is everything you say a lie? Are you ever even accidentally honest?
2
@Joe-Przybranowski there's also a lot more that we don't know, especially with ancient history. Trying to shame people away from being curious is much more harmful than "misinformation".
2
@KimKhan that's the definition of an appeal to authority. If he's really so unqualified, then you should be able to point to the flaws in his theories. His personal credentials aren't relevant.
1
@KimKhan so give an example of something he's lied about. Be specific.
1
@KimKhan none of anything you just said is an example of him lying. He might be wrong, but that doesn't mean he's lying. Turns out you're the one lying, unless you have a real example of him lying that you've just been withholding.
1
@KimKhan you kinda gotcha'd yourself, by making the claim that he's a liar and then failing to provide an example of even one lie.
1
@KimKhan you never demonstrated that he did that, you're just making it up.
1
@VampireNoblesse their entire worldview is "white people bad", and they accuse everyone else of bigotry. It's reprehensible.
1
@tom4aot it's probably YT that's deleting replies. Remember when the entire left side of politics was supporting censorship and suppression of ideas they don't like? Yea. I remember. You don't get to complain when you get what you demanded.
1
@jjbees7911 that's how science works, every new discovery is built on old discoveries by other people. If he's wrong, then it shouldn't be hard for his detractors to prove it, but that's not what they do, they just resort to character assassination instead.
1
@gengiz80 Stonehenge and other ancient Europeans rock circles are some of the main sites used as evidence for Hancock's theories. Why are you being so dishonest? You clearly have no idea what you're talking about, and you're just fabricating nonsense out of thin air. You're just like every other liar in these comments.
1
 @swirvinbirds1971 carbon dating isn't evidence?
1
@swirvinbirds1971 that's just simply untrue, carbon dating supports ancient sites like Gobekli Tepe as being much older than what mainstream academia accepts as the beginning of permanent or at least long term human settlement.
1
@jorndebello7317 calling someone antivax because they're skeptical of one specific new vaccine, or because they're against government mandates, is as dishonest as calling someone a vegetarian because they don't eat pork.
1
@impudentdomain I mean, if you scale it up, isn't everything always moving both towards land, and away from land?
1
@Intranetusa well until we have a more clear and fully fleshed out idea of how they were built, you shouldn't dismiss an idea just because it sounds crazy. And it's not baseless, there is carbon dating that supports the claims of civilizations being much older than originally thought, including the Egyptians. It's not conclusive proof, but we don't have conclusive proof that the mainstream accepted dating is correct either.
1
@Intranetusa and we also know that there was liquid water on Mars in the distant past, and there is bacterial life there now. Yes, that's a far cry from advanced, intelligent life, but just the idea that there was ever life at all on Mars would have been a crazy postulation not very long ago. And it's people like you who always stand in the way and slow down the process.
1
@Intranetusa we are saying "I don't know", that's the entire point of this. You're the ones making affirmative claims you don't know. We have no proof of how ancient civilizations moved the giant stones in such precise formations, like we see all over the world. That doesn't mean they didn't do it, but until someone comes up with a working hypothesis for how they did it, we should be exploring theories, with an open mind.
1
@Intranetusa we know how the Greeks and Romans built their structures, because we have written record of it. They also weren't hauling massive rocks over rough terrain to build megalithic structures. Do you genuinely not see the difference between the Parthenon and the great pyramids, or are you just being dishonest?
1
@pohidie94 that's different man, Italians are very passionate about meat🤣
1