[dbspin]

Your criticism of this channel may be on point - I haven't watched it. But please don't make the mistake of equivocating scientific hypotheses, theories well supported by evidence and crank pseudoscience created for a mass audience. Hancock hasn't been excluded from the 'mainstream' archeological debate. He never participated in it in the first place. He's a writer of retrofuturological science fantasy in the same vein (and citing much the same evidence) as his predecessor Erich von Däniken. This stuff can be hugely entertaining (I'm a science fiction fan and grew up on 'face on mars', 'chariots of the Gods etc'). But its epistemic are based on just so stories and shifting goal posts, not triangulating the dating of sites, engaging in archeological digs or weighing in on scientific arguments about methodology.

[unclad5968]

That may be true but the scientific hypotheses and theories well supported by evidence in archeology have been wrong enough times that it isn't inappropriate to question them

[kelnos]

How is that relevant? Misinterpretation of evidence is a thing, certainly, but that has nothing to do with a crackpot making up stories without any evidence to support them. I can do that too, in an afternoon. Doesn't make it real.

[danparsonson]

That's how science works but new hypotheses must necessarily be able to explain all the existing evidence rather than just cherry-picking.