Im guessing you watch lost civilization.
I have seen it. Not what I am referring to though.
There is no evidence the past was ever like it is today. But I'm open to the idea that civilization can be built and destroyed. Do I believe in what Graham Hancock believes in, some kind of unified civilization during the ice age, no. There is the possibility of civilizations that were local or regional, not global. Potentially more advanced than hunter-gatherers, but nothing like we have today. Though I don't think there is any evidence of that. Still, I would not doubt it. There is some truth to what Graham Hancock says but he tends to exaggerate.
For example, people were quick to dismiss what he said about the Sphinx being much older than what the archeologists initially dated it. Later, we found out that the Sphinx was built on top of a
lion-like boulder that had been shaped by the wind for a very long time. Ancient Egyptians inspired by the pseudo-lion shape, subsequently cut the rest up as we recognize it today. Graham Hancock was correct that it was much older, the archeologists were wrong in dismissing him, but overall he was incorrect by jumping the gun with the overreach of inferring those data to indicate the age of Ancient Egypt was much older.
That is sort of where I stand. I am open to things. I dislike the narrow-minded people who take personal insults to people who want to explore alternative ways outside traditional archeology, however, there is a level of disciplinary approach to my reasoning ways where I still keep things critical on both ends.
Another example, like how laymen get so triggered when the brother Terrance Howard yapped about science-sounding things - most people who were outraged and angry were at the basic level of understanding, if even that. Every "know-it-all" dweeb turned into a scientist:
This was an insufferable trend. Every nerd came out with the:
While scientists with real depth of knowledge might look at it and think, is there something he says that is correct? Or maybe they get amused. They would not get bent out of shape since science dogma is the nonsense the low-level person consumes. If the bums understood how wacky science becomes once you peel the layer of basic competency, it becomes wilder than what Terrence talks about. At best Terrence Howard, through his unorthodox ideas, can give insightful conceptual language that can be interesting. Right? If it's not real it is entertaining. Doesn't make his overall thinking real, or legit. He probably is very wrong. In some ways, he is demonstrably wrong (like in the case of religion). I find the "well, have I ever" pompous outrage cringe.
All this to say, don't box me in, bro. I'm not one of you if you're 100% alternative. I'm not one of them.
