Comments by "C. Galindo" (@c.galindo9639) on "Where was the Advanced Ice Age civilization located? | Graham Hancock and Lex Fridman" video.

@Lee-bv6iv uh yeah. Thanks for deflecting the question to something non relevant. The “science” behind archaeology isn’t all too complicated to where someone with average IQ holding just a high school diploma couldn’t figure it out or understand it. So I ask again, since you seem so fearful of the question. What are your qualifications in archaeology and what makes you believe you are very convincing?
3
@PermacultureCowboy you seem to have some issues you have to sort out with yourself as you are going by your own assumptions and feeling they are the only thing to follow. A lot of what Hancock uses as his methods are grounded in actually observing history in geography, past cultures involvement in the landscape, as well as their own accounts of history there, and other methods of exploring and investigating that is more in depth than your own knowledge which is more limited and less likely to uncover much and solely relies on what has already been known and just remaining in that particular if allowed. I think you are here to make yourself seem important when you really haven’t done anything to make you legitimate in any of your arguments here
3
@Lee-bv6iv yeah you are not very convincing but being very hidden witg your motives here. Hmm. I would say that you want to be convincing all while putting up the false portrayal of yourself being an expert or actually any archaeological experience under your belt. Sigh What are your qualifications in archaeology, do you have archaeology as your background, and do you really believe you are convincing anyone that you know what you’re talking about?
2
@PermacultureCowboy apparently you have forgotten what the video showed and what people find interesting about Graham Hancock and you even somehow forgotten what ideas you’re against here. I can just tell you to reiterate your stance here and what you believe in that somehow makes yourself seemingly appear superior, although amongst your own self proclamation
2
@ uh yeah. Archaeology goes by historical evidence which by all accounts is through passed down stories, to even old maps or documents from ancient languages that can be forgotten, as well as historical events, changes in weather patterns, etc. Yeah it may be called Atlantis as a legend but could refer to something else. Funnily enough archaeology is hardly explored and only panders to what can be invested in to be explored and even then not all archaeological sites are excavated or explored further. I would say he is thinking about the box from conventional methods that are severely limited and lack in expanding on furthering different approaches that are left out because risk is something most “experts” would not consider The real bullocks is the pious attitude of the people who peer from their own self entitled view rather than a ground based approach
2
@danieldufur7474 I mainly wanted an actual discussion not someone’s own personal berating over someone they aren’t in favor of. Although some people have good reasons to do so it has to be logically applicable as well
2
@volcomdork665 what is the “scientific method” that shouldn’t be questioned, then?
1
@Lee-bv6iv uh no. He is going a different approach that is often ignored from archaeology that uses a different methodology to their finding and even then it doesn’t mean all archaeology is explored or even uncovered as it has to be funded. Most projects of discovery go after funding which doesn’t rely on thinking outside the box or else the project funds will be rejected. It’s basically people believing 2+2=4 is the only best way to make out the answer to 4 when Hancock is suggesting 2+1+1=4 is also a viable solution or even 2x2=4. Just because someone uses a different method that isn’t “normal” does not mean they are wrong especially when it gives the same results
1
@Lee-bv6iv I had a different comment aimed at you which you seemed to have overlooked but either way. Go ahead and answer that question you assumed was for you if it is something you are curious to answer, as well as it can serve to be insightful amongst the comment thread here.
1
@Lee-bv6iv uh yeah. Thanks for being an entertainer with your smug attitude to the topic. Anyhow, yeah what you see as reliable and valid methodology isn’t anything that Graham Hancock hasn’t done. You apparently are not one to pay attention to the video as well as your skepticism of him comes off more as a prejudice and the ideas he exudes bring into greater, broader perspectives to open up chances at more discoveries for archaeology, which by his research is hardly even explored on findings to discover anything viable at such a low percentage. It’s quite funny you take archeology so seriously. Now I will direct a question at you this time, since you want my attention. What are your qualifications in archeology and what makes you believe you are very convincing?
1
Well because water will literally wash away all existence of any evidence of anything underwater. Most of anything in human history has disappeared due to time passing amongst the elements. Like 99%~ of traces of past ancient human civilizations literally disappeared from existence
1
@PermacultureCowboy you are as delusional as your thinking that you can discern what best describes archaeology. Clearly reality has escaped your way of thinking
1
@PermacultureCowboy you are just making up fallacies towards ideas you disagree with and attempt to tarnish it by suggesting it’s something else. Whatever your prejudice is against something else, making assumptions about it is an obvious sign that you are as paranoid and delusional as the assumptions you have against such ideas
1
@PermacultureCowboy uh yeah, no. You fallaciously exclaim just one point I made and ignored several others as well as assumed I suggest “all history is wrong” when that wasn’t even stated or assumed by me. You seriously are portraying yourself as a serious liar and a delusional person. For a history major you sure do have poor characteristic qualities that show your account of history shouldn’t be taken seriously as you are one to lie about another in order to attempt to shut down their logical point of view. How embarrassing.
1
@PermacultureCowboy again with more assumptions on your part and clearly not what is actually being discussed. Yes it’s about Hancock’s research and no it isn’t suggesting he is actually going for Atlantis but what many historical evidence points to something of a legend like Atlantis. He isn’t doing anything fictional either in researching other exploration. You do know the battle of Troy was seen as fictional because the Iliad was seen as just a fairytale however a whole city like Trou was uncovered in archaeology which showed that people brushing it off were false. Exploring things of local significance as well as having some historical evidence pointing to it isn’t far fetched. You’re just someone who wants to be a critic but can’t discredit Hancock in his methodology or research. Just that you believe in something else he is looking for. That’s very close minded of you
1
The reason is it is way too dangerous to explore there and trying to find a small trace of anything findable is already difficult even in ideal environments
1
A very intelligent and rationally, thought out response to the topic he is given to answer. I am very intrigued on what he may uncover in his future findings if his hunch happens to be correct
1