Comments by "Hallands Menved" (@Hallands.) on "World of Antiquity"
channel.
-
2
-
2
-
Wow, how condescending your ego comes off, explaining peripheral details not in need of explaining, while skirting every single point made by your target. That is distinctly disingenuous!
Take 11:25 for instance: It’s clear that the tight fitting, polygonal blocks – as compared to later repair – is what your target is putting forward, but instead of addressing this very real conundrum, you chose to lecture us about the use of the term »open mind« going so far as to provide a silly illustration!
How about you get serious instead and with common decency try to explain that, which he says isn’t well explained?
Another deception of yours is the critique of his »unfair advantage«: How can he ascribe his chosen items to any known culture or era, when the whole premiss is that this is unknown and unattempted?
He may not even claim to possess the ability to do so, I don’t know, but why would that prevent him or anyone else from pointing out jarring inconsistencies for you professional scientist to manage and explain better?
If this is the level of your rebuttals, you’re a complete waste of time, and if it isn’t, you should make much shorter, much less self-indulgent videos, which gets directly to the core issues and either rebuts the implied critique, admits to a partial conundrum or admits your detractors were correct and contribute to start some serious new research – with an open mind! – no further explanation of the term needed, thank you very much…
2
-
1
-
1
-
@WorldofAntiquity (He didn't make any point about polygonal masonry. He just showed an image of Cusco for a few seconds. There was no argument about polygonal masonry even to address! Come on now.) Yes, he did, because like most uploads his video pictures and narrative forms a whole. Address it!
(How is that deceptive? I stated the truth. And if he doesn't have a better explanation for what we see than the theories that are generally accepted, you should not have any expectation that someone who cares about evidence is going to change their mind.)
Is that seriously you stance? Then I’m out, I don’t waste time on fools. It is completely within the bounds of science to point out a problem without having any solution. Quantum Physics wouldn’t have much to say otherwise. It’s you are the problem, because you can’t see that progress can never be made without open ended questions.
(He does a lot more than just point out inconsistencies. He makes definitive statements about the age of the artifacts and the tools that were used.) How rude? So, just point this out and move on.
(It doesn't appear you even got past the introduction. You have no idea what evidence I present.) Oh, I got past that, I can assure you, but that isn’t really the point either, even though you're correct insofar as I became sufficiently annoyed at this video to cut out, but I have watched several others in full. The problems are the same and seems to stem from a bloated ego. Apply some self-critique and MOVE!
1