[detritus]

It'd not even be 'deep' in the oceans, more just a few tens of metres off-shore and down a bit.

I'm no fan of Hancock, but I've long thought about how much of our history we're simply blind to because it's not right in front of our eyes.

[ricksunny]

parent's comment seems to denigrate the site itself by associating it with someone named Hancock (who I have non idea who that it is). The article doesn't mention this individual at all. Two things can be true:

• something (an object, a site, a finding) can be amazing

• someone can have over-indexed on how amazing that thing is ahead of available evidence.

Language matterd because this type of guilt-by-association induces a backlash on studying existing evidence and investing in further evidence-gathering (whether supportive or falsifying) efforts. Scientists are all too sensitive to stigmatised or even potentially-stigmatised (watchword: 'controversial') topics b/c their career fundability prospects from grants are at stake.

[AStrangeMorrow]

True. Just because someone uses some else research to push a bad narrative doesn't mean the initial research is bad.

But in this case it fairly certainly is. Either by lack of scientific rigor, if not worse.

Doesn't make much sense from an archeological standpoint, and there are concerns from the geological standpoint too it seems:

Ex: https://www.reddit.com/r/geology/comments/17t81dg/question_r...