eternalsteelfan

eternalsteelfan t1_ixb4kdp wrote

The farther you go back, the more abstract things get. There is “evidence”, it’s a matter of if you believe it and how you interpret it. Someone sees an ancient road buried under the sea, others see a rock formation.

1
−1

eternalsteelfan t1_ixb2pea wrote

Again, 12000 years ago, not exactly a possibility for a ton of physical evidence. Things do, suspiciously, keep getting older…

I think the strong reactions, like yours, to the mere notion that it’s possible we don’t know everything about ancient history is even more fascinating than the theories, however outlandish.

2

eternalsteelfan t1_ixau54r wrote

Objectively: he’s been claiming for a long time that civilization is much older than we think and there were advanced civilizations that were wiped out by some cataclysm and the ancient, sophisticated wonders were signs that some history and methods were passed down orally by survivors. The rise of the Younger Dryas Impact could be seen as something that corroborates (or simply coincides with) his theory as well as the ever-increasing “age” of civilization as seen in Gobekli Tepi and similar sites. Subjectively: There are a lot of naysayers, but it’s fair to say that over the past few years his theories have generally looked better and better. I think he’s a bit off the deep end with how “advanced” he proposes they were, but I think it’s very interesting (and plausible) there were civilizations lost to time. Even if we vanished, there’d be no signs left after ten thousand years and the Younger Dryas was like 12,000 years ago.

2