JRE: Carlson & Hancock on Lost Technology and the Great Pyramids

[Carl-Richard]

Do you also get the sense that they're trying very hard to sell you something?

Lost technology is an interesting concept, but this is not very convincing.

[Pateedm]

There's definitely technological possibilities that humans tapped into. For example: Element 115 that was used to power the crafts that Bob Lazar was working with.

Burning fossil fuels can not sustain humanity forever anyway so they must be replaced by something that will be far more efficient and far less destructive.

I still have to listen to that whole podcast though.

[Carl-Richard]

28 minutes ago, Pateedm said:

There's definitely technological possibilities that humans tapped into. For example: Element 115 that was used to power the crafts that Bob Lazar was working with.

Burning fossil fuels can not sustain humanity forever anyway so they must be replaced by something that will be far more efficient and far less destructive.

I still have to listen to that whole podcast though.

The premise is ok. The lack of evidence and hype-chasing like the video above, not so much.

[zurew]

17 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

Lost technology is an interesting concept, but this is not very convincing.

Give it three month and we will see whether Randall's claim about that tech leak is true or not.

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

he premise is ok. The lack of evidence and hype-chasing like the video above, not so much.

Yeah, they didn't show any evidence plus the narrative is weak as well. If what they say is true, then they need to do a better job at presenting these ideas . They already don't have a good reputation when it comes to academia and mainstream science, so they shouldn't destroy it even more, with teasing without no evidence. If they want more attention on this and if they want more people to work on this, then they should do a better job at leaking it in a way where it is more believable for scientists and academics.

At the end of the day, if what he says is true, then it shouldn't be hard to show tangible evidence, because so far its just teasing with nothing behind it.

[RobertZ]

I agree about the ‘trying very hard to sell something’ vibe. 
 

However, Hancock seems to be framing knowledge of human civilization pre ~10,000 BC as either well-settled (i.e., small bands of hunter-gatherers), or unknown (i.e., well-developed civilizations probably existed). The second alternative indicates that human beings are ignorant of our past. ‘Nothing to see here, folks—we know enough’ versus, ‘some people are suppressing the premise of investigation, that we don’t know.’  

 

Personally, the claim that some people are suppressing investigation does not motivate me.

 

However, I am somewhat inclined toward this application of the Platonic method. Hancock seems to be saying, “Some people are claiming that human beings remember who we are, where we came from, and what we have done. But whereas I am honest and admit that I do not know our past, they are doubly-ignorant because not only do they not know our past, they also don’t know that they do not know our past.’

 

I am inclined toward this approach not because of a conspiracy that people are hiding the truth, but because recognition of ignorance prompts better knowledge. 

Edited November 11, 2022 by RobertZ

[Carl-Richard]

Hancock has a Netflix series out called "Ancient Apocalypse" where he lays down his life's work. I'm going to watch it, and there are a few observations I'll make before I watch it:

1. I want there to have existed an ancient civilization before the Ice Age that was technologically advanced. It's mysterious and exciting. That already makes me prone to bias.

2. The very thing that makes it exciting is that there is not much conclusive evidence (or else it would not be this fringe). There is some evidence which gets intermixed with some far-fetched narratives which could be true and which sound internally consistent, but they're not necessarily the fact of the matter. This is also just a general problem with archaeology as a field.

3. It's all couched in an anti-establishment "they don't want you to know" frame, which makes it more exciting that it needs to be. Every discovery will be presented in this overly dramatized way, like "wow, this is insane", etc. It won't be like "here is a theory", but rather "here is the truth they're trying to hide from you!".

4. Someone who makes this kind of thing their life's work (the laymen contrarian who challenges the mainstream paradigm) has to possess a certain level of narcissism which puts into question their intentions, awareness of the limitations of their abilities, etc.

Regardless, I'll probably love it  

Edited November 16, 2022 by Carl-Richard