I am not understanding why he is getting so much hate.
The writer is pretty transparent here. If you start to question one universally accepted "truth", your mind opens up to the possibility that other accepted truths - like that US elections are safe and secure - might not be totally true, despite what all the experts have told you. I'm not exaggerating when I say he's literally asking you - the super smart well-read subscriber of The Guardian - to not think for yourself too much and please just let us honest journalists and academics guide you. Research is too much work for you, and you certainly wouldn't want to be mislead by misinformation. I honestly would not be surprised if this guy has intelligence agency connections.
Historians and anthropologists (to some extent geologists) in academia have always been self-important pricks who fiercely guarded their positions as the oracles of accepted history against apocryphal views, using all the political and smear tactics we notice the medical science establishment employing today since they unmasked themselves over COVID19. It's even easier in those fields than in medical research because the evidence is often more ambiguous and analytically derived. Rather than hard data telling you exactly what happens, you need well established "experts" to interpret the data and tell you what happened, like the Catholic church telling you what scripture says because you can't read.
I always love how these arrogant pricks never have a comment section. Utter cowards.
Also, no one ever sits down to debate Hancock on any of this stuff. They just say “it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny so we won’t even bother”. If he’s SO wrong and SUCH an idiot you’d think they would relish the opportunity to put him in an embarrassing checkmate live on air.
it's like that twitter thread. the guy had like dozens of posts and not one shred of evidence, just buzzwords and "it sounds like something a bad man said once to justify his bad man thoughts!"
It’s crazy they bend the knee to something that is legitimately a lie. Everyone knows is a lie. But something that might be true is what they lock arms and unite against.
there are some well-documented hoaxes in archeology and anthropology (anthro is trash IMO - not a real field). so much is also unsubstantiated conjecture presented as if it had far more evidence than actually exists
What gets me is that Discovery can run an entire series about how mermaids exist, based solely on four bone fragments some weirdo turned into a skull along with clearly CGI footage, with a straight face and nobody gives a shit.
This guy has way more evidence than Discovery ever did for their nonsense.
to not think for yourself too much and please just let us honest journalists and academics guide you. Research is too much work for you, and you certainly wouldn't want to be mislead by misinformation
"Reading the Wikileaks emails is illegal for you, it's different for us because we're in the media" — Chris Cuomo
Another example: when the Big Bang theory was first proposed, Hubble and the other Steady State adherents (who thought that the galaxy had existed without change and that there was no "creation") mocked it, because the Catholic and Orthodox churches embraced it. But Hubble was an accepted scientist, so we name shit after him.
The writer is pretty transparent here. If you start to question one universally accepted "truth", your mind opens up to the possibility that other accepted truths - like that US elections are safe and secure - might not be totally true, despite what all the experts have told you. I'm not exaggerating when I say he's literally asking you - the super smart well-read subscriber of The Guardian - to not think for yourself too much and please just let us honest journalists and academics guide you. Research is too much work for you, and you certainly wouldn't want to be mislead by misinformation. I honestly would not be surprised if this guy has intelligence agency connections.
Historians and anthropologists (to some extent geologists) in academia have always been self-important pricks who fiercely guarded their positions as the oracles of accepted history against apocryphal views, using all the political and smear tactics we notice the medical science establishment employing today since they unmasked themselves over COVID19. It's even easier in those fields than in medical research because the evidence is often more ambiguous and analytically derived. Rather than hard data telling you exactly what happens, you need well established "experts" to interpret the data and tell you what happened, like the Catholic church telling you what scripture says because you can't read.
I always love how these arrogant pricks never have a comment section. Utter cowards.
Also, no one ever sits down to debate Hancock on any of this stuff. They just say “it doesn’t stand up to scrutiny so we won’t even bother”. If he’s SO wrong and SUCH an idiot you’d think they would relish the opportunity to put him in an embarrassing checkmate live on air.
it's like that twitter thread. the guy had like dozens of posts and not one shred of evidence, just buzzwords and "it sounds like something a bad man said once to justify his bad man thoughts!"
True. Look at how the hard sciences have bent the knee to trans nonsense
It’s crazy they bend the knee to something that is legitimately a lie. Everyone knows is a lie. But something that might be true is what they lock arms and unite against.
there are some well-documented hoaxes in archeology and anthropology (anthro is trash IMO - not a real field). so much is also unsubstantiated conjecture presented as if it had far more evidence than actually exists
What gets me is that Discovery can run an entire series about how mermaids exist, based solely on four bone fragments some weirdo turned into a skull along with clearly CGI footage, with a straight face and nobody gives a shit.
This guy has way more evidence than Discovery ever did for their nonsense.
Piltdown man!
"Reading the Wikileaks emails is illegal for you, it's different for us because we're in the media" — Chris Cuomo
Another example: when the Big Bang theory was first proposed, Hubble and the other Steady State adherents (who thought that the galaxy had existed without change and that there was no "creation") mocked it, because the Catholic and Orthodox churches embraced it. But Hubble was an accepted scientist, so we name shit after him.
And now ironically the Webb telescope is calling the BBT itself into question.