Ancient lizard people and their lost advanced civilization: that is what the Silurian Hypothesis, a scientific thought experiment, is based on. The Silurian age is a geological period of about 24 million years, falling between 443 and 419 million years ago, but that really has nothing to do with it. Rather the Silurian Hypothesis takes its name from a fictional species of reptilian humanoids whose civilization existed at the dawn of human evolution, who went into hibernation in order to survive the cataclysmic event of the moon’s formation, when an object or objects crashed into the young Earth around the beginning of our solar system, flinging debris into orbit and thereby creating our earthly nightlight. Of course, the name of this fictional reptile species was borrowed from the Silurian geological age, but that’s not when any of those things happened. And those with some working knowledge of the geologic timescale will recognize that the dawn of humanity did not occur anywhere near the time of the moon’s formation. The moon is estimated to have taken form about 4.5 billion years ago, whereas humankind only developed within the last hundred million years or so, whether you’re counting from the appearance of primates or the emergence of hominids. But it’s close enough for the British sci-fi series Doctor Who, which is where this fictional story was told. No offense to Doctor Who fans; I love Doctor Who, and I’m very much enjoying Ncuti Gatwa’s Doctor. But you may be wondering what kind of scientific thought experiment could be based on such a story. In 2018, two astrophysicists, Adam Frank and Gavin Schmidt, published a paper in the International Journal of Astrobiology in which they asked the question how science might go about detecting such a civilization as was imagined in Doctor Who—an advanced civilization that existed in the distant past, all remnants of which would have been destroyed by cataclysm or simply by the natural changes of the Earth. They concluded that direct evidence for such a civilization, such as pieces of their technology, would likely never be found on the Earth’s surface, as tectonic activity and erosion would wipe it out of existence. While they did theorize that, should such a civilization have developed space flight, we may be able to find their technological artifacts on the Moon or on Mars, here on Earth, we would be more likely to discover only trace evidence of such a civilization deep underground, such as nuclear waste or plastics. Or we might be able to see signs of their activity in the geologic record, through the chemical anomalies in sedimentary layers or by detecting periods of climate change in the past that may have been triggered by their technology. Now, one might take the Silurian Hypothesis one of two ways. You might take it as support for the perspective that, if there ever was a lost ancient civilization with advanced technology, scientists would come up with a way to detect it. Or you could take it as evidence that a lost advanced civilization can disappear without a trace, all evidence of it easily going unrecognized by science. If you are of the latter mind, then before you apply this thought experiment to the most popular claims of a lost ancient civilization with advanced technology that are propagated today, most vocally by Graham Hancock, you must recognize that the Silurian Hypothesis is talking about what evidence such a lost advanced civilization might leave behind if it existed millions of years ago, about 2.5 million years ago to be more specific. Whereas Hancock imagines his technological Atlantis to have been destroyed only about 13 thousand years ago. Unlike the hypothetical civilization of the Silurian Hypothesis, we cannot blame erosion and tectonic activity for entirely erasing all evidence of such a Stone Age civilization. More precisely, this would have been a Mesolithic civilization, and archaeologists have excavated and studied many Mesolithic sites, as well as even more Paleolithic sites, finding plenty of stone age artifacts, and no evidence of high technology anywhere. Does this lack of compelling evidence dissuade Hancock and other proponents of lost high-tech ancient civilizations? I think you know the answer to that question already.

For as long as the subject has been studied, ethnologists and folklorists have puzzled over the apparent migration and diffusion of similar mythological traditions. Why do strikingly comparable myths appear in surprisingly distant and separate cultures? It has long been the goal of comparative mythologists to note these likenesses and to theorize about the migration of these stories. In more recent years, the method of genealogists has been leveraged to assemble family trees identifying specific elements of myths, or mythemes, and this “phylogenetic” analysis of mythology has led to the conclusion that many myths and folktales date all the way back to the Paleolithic period and even reflect Stone Age cave art. Now, it seems to me that, if there really were a technologically advanced civilization during this time period, especially one that interacted with less advanced peoples, the way Graham Hancock and other proponents of the theory claim, that some trace of them and their technology could be found in surviving mythology. Of course, this is the bread and butter of lost high tech ancient civilization theorists, who lack actual concrete evidence and instead rely on myths about cataclysms as evidence of the loss of their supposed civilization, or about gods coming from the sky or from the sea to suggest those gods must have been the technologically advanced people, but let’s examine that further. Certainly there are widespread myths about a flood cataclysm, but this may be simply explained as a reflection of local flooding disasters, since there is not geological evidence of a global flood, as I spoke about in great detail in my episode The Deluge and the Ark Seekers. And in general, myths about disasters are common simply because, when a natural disaster affected ancient peoples, whether it be a flood, an earthquake, the landfall of a hurricane, or the eruption of a volcano, they tended to remember it and think it happened because their deities were upset with them. So disregarding mythemes related to natural disaster, what I’m looking for are mythemes that actually indicate some sort of advanced technology, wielded by people or gods, in the distant past. Of course, Hancock and others go to the Atlantis myth, but there is compelling reason to view that whole story as Plato’s allegorical twist on flood narratives, as I’ve already discussed. And surprisingly, there is little to suggest the presence of really advanced technology in Plato’s story. There is mention of seafaring, canals, and metallurgy, all technologies common in Plato’s time, and there is no indication of this being an element of previous flood narratives. Some, including Hancock, may want to point out that the bene ha-'elohim, or “sons of God” of Genesis are said to have imparted forbidden knowledge to mankind before the flood of Noah, but this was a much later, apocryphal addition to the narrative, when these figures were called Watchers, and the forbidden knowledge they are said to have given to mankind had to do with crafting weapons and jewelry and making colored dyes for make-up, things that again were commonly known at the time of the tradition’s appearance and also certainly aren’t what we would consider advanced technology. Really the only mythological tradition I can find that definitely seems to depict an advanced technology is that having to do with the creation of artificial life. Hephaestus, the Greek god of craftsmen and metallurgy, is said to have built, basically, a giant robot, Talos. This giant bronze android, tasked with protecting the island of Crete, was even described as having specific workings, with a kind of fuel or oil line: a tube that carried ichor, the blood of the gods, from his head to his ankle. While this is certainly interesting, the story cannot be traced any further back than about 400 BCE, and a story of one giant robot, even if it were traceable back to the Stone Age, would not really stand as evidence of a technological society.

Talos, the Bronze Giant, as depicted in the 1963 classic, *Jason and the Argonauts*.

What then would stand as evidence of a lost ancient technological society? This is the question. For a lost technological civilization of the Stone Age or later, we need not dig deeply beneath the Earth to test sediment for nuclear waste, as we would to find evidence of a civilization from 2.5 million years ago. Rather, you would just provide the same sorts of archaeological evidence that is used to establish the existence of and reliably date any other human settlement. We would need evidence of their material culture, as in artifacts and tools, as well as structural remains, and we would need reliable dates for them, through carbon dating or stratigraphy. In the case of a technologically advanced civilization, the structural evidence and artifacts must do the heavy lifting, demonstrating their high technology. Not only that, but to prove this technological civilization was globe-spanning, which is a typical claim about ancient advanced civilizations generally and Atlantis in particular, these cultural layers must be found at comparable stratigraphic layers in numerous places all over the world, or the material culture left behind must be dated to a comparable age using other scientific means. Linguistic evidence would be useful not only to establish any degree of technological advancement but also in connecting geographically distant cultures, as a common or related language present at numerous sites would help to establish the presence of this advanced culture’s presence around the world. Skeletal evidence would also accomplish this, as DNA could prove the genetic relation between these distant peoples. Of course, none of this has actually been found. As for the material culture of a technological society, I can already imagine some arguing that actual technological devices might have existed and simply have not yet been discovered. I will grant this, especially since no evidence of hand-powered orreries or astronomical calculators was known to exist before the Common Era until part of one was discovered near Antikythera in the 20th century. However, if we really think about this argument, it contains its own refutation. You could say that anything might have existed and we just haven’t found evidence of it yet. Unicorns and dragons may have existed and we haven’t found the evidence yet. This is essentially the argument for Bigfoot’s existence. But this is a tacit admission that no evidence exists, which means there is no good reason to believe it existed. Moreover, I would take that fact that only one such device as the Antikythera mechanism has ever been found and was not discovered until the 20th century as a further refutation of any claims about ancient advanced civilizations, as the very rarity of it, as well as the sense we get from Cicero’s remarks about such orreries, indicates that such devices were outliers. If devices like that had been common in the distant past, as would be the case in a truly advanced technological civilization, I imagine we would find them at Stone Age habitation sites, not just in Roman shipwrecks. So just as I asked where all the giant bones are when I looked at the myth of ancient giants, I now ask, where are all the ancient technological devices? Or even the depictions of technological devices in ancient art?

Lost ancient civilization conspiracists love to point to one or two totally unrelated and usually misrepresented finds to argue that, actually, evidence of advanced technological devices has been discovered. The only artifact typically pointed to is the “Baghdad Battery,” whose popular name is extremely deceiving. This terracotta pot discovered in Iraq, first of all, dates to the Parthian period, more than 10 thousand years after the supposed advanced technological civilization that Hancock and others propose. This dating also might be inaccurate, because the context of its find is not certain, so it may be of a far later origin, even medieval. Its lack of study in situ, within the context of an archaeological excavation, make it already a questionable find, and the claims made almost immediately about it by the head of the National Museum of Iraq make it even more dubious. The pot contained a rolled copper cylinder, within which was an iron rod, affixed within the cylinder using a bitumen plug. The director of the museum happened to have a pet theory that some gilded artifacts he had discovered were electroplated, and he theorized that the pot was actually a galvanic cell, used to generate electricity for electroplating, an electrochemical process for producing a thin metal coating. Subsequent testing showed that some acidic substance had formerly filled the jar, such as wine or vinegar, further fueling speculation that it was a battery using a primitive electrolyte. In fact, using reproductions of the pot and lemon juice as its acidic agent, MythBusters was able to prove that such a device could produce an electrical charge. However, it only produced about one volt, not enough for the purpose of electroplating, nor have any devices for the conducting of that electricity, such as wires, ever been discovered, and most importantly, the museum director’s theories about Mesopotamian electroplating have since been disproven due to a lack of electroplated artifacts. What exactly was this pot, then? Along with this terracotta pot apparently three others were found, two with similar copper cylinders and one containing parchment. This has led to suggestions that the jars were intended to preserve parchment, though it’s unclear how the copper cylinder and iron rod facilitated this, and the traces of wine/vinegar in the one jar certainly indicates that those with the cylinder were used for something else. One recent theory, that it was used for pain relief, as a kind of mild electrotherapy, is interesting, but again, it would seem to require some actual conductor, and since the bitumen plug appears to have covered the iron rod in the cylinder, its not even clear that there was a connector or head of any sort. The simple fact is that we don’t know for certain what it was used for, and we may never know, since it was looted and disappeared during the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. If I were asked to speculate, I would say traces of wine or vinegar might indicate that the pots were used to store or even ferment wine, and the well-known use of copper to reduce the unpleasant smells produced by fermentation and to mediate oxidation, thereby decreasing the intensity of the wine’s aroma, along with the fact that clay pots have been used to ferment and age wine since the Neolithic age, causes me to suspect these were just wine crocks. I have not been able to find this idea actually discussed anywhere, so I’m not sure if I have originated it or if it’s fundamentally flawed in some way, so take it for what it’s worth. What I do know is that there is no evidence whatsoever that it was a battery used to power electrical devices.

A reproduction of the “Baghdad Battery” artifact, in cross-section.

Those who try to claim that the Baghdad Battery actually was a galvanic cell used to power ancient electrical devices long before the 18th century, when electricity was first harnessed, often find as their evidence not an actual electrical device but what they claim is an artistic depiction of one. You may be thinking, “Artwork depicting an electrical device in a Parthian era archaeological site? Surely this proves the battery theory!” but this was not in Iraq, nor was it in an archaeological site associated with the same time period. Rather, it was found in a temple that is at least a couple hundred years older than the Baghdad pot, maybe several hundred years older if the pot is from a later period, as some suspect, and it’s located more than 1700 kilometers away, in Dendera, Egypt. Egypt! Some might excitedly exclaim, for if there were ever proof of ancient advanced technology that may have been imparted by a lost civilization like Atlantis, it must be there, right? Well, trudge with me back to the desert to find out more about the also very deceptively named “Dendera Light.” There, in the Temple of Hathor, a massive holy site boasting tons of hieroglyphs, some reliefs depict an object that the fringe claim is a big, elongated lightbulb! When I men big and elongated, I mean it is larger than any figure in the carving, which we could attribute not to the literal size of the thing but to hieratic scale, making it larger to emphasize importance. However, regardless of hieratic scale, this supposed light bulb is shown in each depiction as being held up by two to three people and sometimes a djed, which is a sort of symbolic pillar in Egyptian art. However, as is abundantly clear just from looking at it, the “bulb” in the reliefs is coming not out of a socket attached to a wire, but rather out of a flower on a vine, and the supposed filament seen within the bulb is clearly a snake. Promoters of this claim, which actually did not appear until 1992 in a German book produced by two ancient astronaut theorists called The Light of the Pharaohs, argue that these are only stylistic representations of a real, working lightbulb. But the hieroglyphs around these glyphs explain exactly what they are depicting, the Egyptian creation myth: a snake born from a lotus flower. The “bulb” is here representative of a womb, but in the many other depictions of this creation myth to be found in other Egyptian art, no womb is seen, just a snake emerging from a lotus vine, looking nothing like a lightbulb. With the literal inscription itself that you’re pointing to as evidence telling you you’re wrong, you’d need to have some compelling evidence beyond “It sure looks like a snaky lightbulb,” so what further evidence do pseudohistorians rely on to prove that Egyptians had electrical lighting, since no actual electrical devices are to be found and no electrical infrastructure actually exists, like those pesky wires and sockets they’d need. Well, one 19th century archaeoastronomist, Norman Lockyear, who helped to popularize ideas about astronomical alignments of ancient monuments, mentions in his book The Dawn of Astronomy, that “in all freshly-opened tombs there are no traces whatever of any kind of combustion…” further remarking that in discussing this, his friend “laughingly suggested the possibility that the electric light was known to ancient Egyptians.” This remark, clearly made in jest, and its indication that there was a distinct lack of lampblack or soot in these sites, has actually been touted as evidence for Egyptian knowledge of electricity. Actually, just before that, Lockyear offers a simple explanation, that “doubtless all inscriptions in the deepest tombs were made by means of reflected sunlight,” and this theory, of “a system of fixed mirrors” is still subscribed to by some Egyptologists. However, there is a simpler explanation, supported by archaeology and Egyptian texts themselves, that Egyptians added natron pellets, or salt, to the castor oil in their lamps, which created a smokeless fuel, no lightbulbs or electricity needed.

When it comes to claims about advanced Egyptian technology, specifically having to do with energy like electricity, you cannot get much more extreme than the claims of Christopher Dunn, who just happened to be platformed by Joe Rogan a couple months ago. I spoke about Dunn’s claims briefly in the conclusion of my Pyramidiocy series, as they were promoted by Billy Carson. Essentially, he argues that the Great Pyramid of Giza was designed to be a hydrogen generator, which generated electricity through the vibration produced by water beneath the pyramid. His theory further relies on the use of hydrogen gas to produce microwaves, making of the pyramid a kind of hydrogen maser, which if you’re not familiar is basically an acronym like laser, but referring to microwave amplification by stimulated emission of radiation rather than light amplification. Dunn puts it succinctly himself in the summary of his 1998 book The Giza Power Plant, “Facilitated by the element that fuels our sun (hydrogen) and uniting the energy of the universe with that of the Earth, the ancient Egyptians converted vibrational energy into microwave energy.” Like other pyramidologists, Dunn recycles old ideas, and he’s understandably rather cagy about where his claims originated. First and foremost, his theory relies on outdated ideas about a watercourse running beneath the pyramid, and a long debunked pseudoarchaeological claim that the pyramids were designed to pump water up from below. This theory was first floated, so to speak, by Edward Kunkel, in 1962’s Pharaoh’s Pump, which claimed that fires were built in the King’s Chamber, which would draw water upward. Not only is there no evidence of the scorching that such fires would have created, and not only would such fires not provide the suction necessary to pump water so high, but also, despite what pyramidologists like to claim about how tightly the stones in the pyramid fit together, the shafts and chambers of the Great Pyramid are not watertight. Dunn’s further claim that about the use of hydrogen is predicated, like most pyramidology, on his creative interpretation of measurements. One shaft within the Great pyramid is 8.4 inches wide, and he points out that the wavelength of hydrogen is 8.309 inches and therefore must be a wave guide. Well, for a wave guide to work, it must be lined with metal, which Dunn says it must have been with no evidence that it was. But more than this, just as the pyramid stonework is not watertight, it is not airtight and would not hold the hydrogen gas that he says, again without evidence, the Egyptians pumped into it—never mind that we have no reason to think Egyptians could manufacture or even contain hydrogen gas. In other words, for his whole theory to hold water, so to speak, the entire interior of the pyramid would have had to be lined with airtight metal. Dunn’s claims culminate with the further claim that the pyramid’s production of microwave energy was for the purpose of its wireless transmission to power electrical devices, something like Nikola Tesla’s Wardenclyffe experiment in the beginning of the 20th century. And predictably, he cites the Dendera light as an example of something that might be powered by this wireless energy, even though, as we’ve seen, there weren’t any such lights. So what we’re left with is a claim that the Pyramid could have worked as a power plant if they had the water needed, the pumps necessary, the hydrogen gas required, the impermeable lining throughout the pyramid to make it possible, and also technological devices to which it might transmit that energy. And that is a lot of missing pieces, not to mention the fact that shafts he says were used in this power plant were actually closed off, and the further fact that this idea of his doesn’t work for any other pyramids, which would mean they decided to make a power plant in the shape of a tomb just next to other tombs.

One of the Dendera reliefs mistaken for depicting a big light bulb.

Finally, having exhausted the explicit claims about ancient knowledge of electricity, I find myself drawn back to the claims of Graham Hancock. Inevitably, I will probably have to take on his and others’ claims about Atlantic and a lost ancient and technologically advanced civilization in more detail in some future series, but at this point I’m fatigued by them. All I will say, overall, is that regardless of the many claims he makes throughout his books and Netflix docuseries, he simply never provides the evidence necessary to prove his claims, that being the material culture and skeletal evidence with reliable dating to prove the existence of a world-spanning advanced civilization at the end of the last Ice Age. What I want to address here, at the conclusion of this series, are his claims that the lost civilization he proposes was technologically advanced. To go back to the original story of Atlantis, from Plato in his Critias, not much in the way of advanced technology is hinted at. They were said to have been a seafaring people, and depending on the sophistication of their vessels and navigation methods, this could definitely be seen as technologically advanced 12,000 years ago, but what evidence does Hancock provide? He points to 16th century maps, including the Piri Reis map. Hancock claims that the Piri Reis map was based on source maps that are now lost, and without any evidence or real reason, he claims those source maps go all the way back to his Stone Age Atlantean mega-civilization. With this claim, he argues that knowledge of previously undiscovered parts of the world were actually passed down from those Atlantean seafarers. I’ve talked about the Piri Reis map before in connection to Pre-Columbian Trans-Oceanic Contact theories. There are simple explanations for its depiction of both the Caribbean and South America, which Graham Hancock mistakes for Antarctica. The most relevant of these is that the mapmaker was working with a source map from Columbus’s voyages. And no matter how many 16th century maps Graham Hancock turns up with curious aspects on them, there is no explaining why some Atlantean source maps from the Stone Age would go unnoticed and unremarked on for 12,000 years and only be used by cartographers in the 16th century during the Age of Exploration, when we know that new maps that could be used as sources were being created.

Perhaps the best argument that Hancock comes up with relates to Göbekli Tepe, a Neolithic archarological site in Turkey. Dating to 11,600 years old, this was shown to be the oldest megalithic site in the world when it was first studied in depth in the 1990s, though Karahan Tepe, another site in Turkey, has been shown to predate it. What makes these sites so astonishing is that during this time period, before the development of agriculture in most parts of the world, humans were hunter-gatherers, and thus typically migratory and unlikely to stay in one place, building permanent structures like this. Honestly, it is not surprising that Hancock would seize on Göbekli Tepe, which looks at first blush like just the sort of evidence his theory might need, in that it’s almost 12,000 years old and definitely constitutes material culture. However, it does nothing to prove his globe-spanning Stone Age civilization hypothesis, and since by his theory, Atlantis was destroyed about a thousand years earlier, in a cataclysmic comet strike during the Younger Dryas period, he finds another way to spin the find. He suggests that Göbekli Tepe is evidence that an advanced civilization taught agriculture to the hunter-gatherers of the Stone Age, and it therefore stands as evidence of Atlantis’s civilizing influence on less advanced cultures. Well, this is the reason that Graham Hancock is accused of spreading racist ideas. I spoke about this in my episode on the Myth of a Lost Mound Builder Race, as claims that some indigenous people could not possibly have built certain monuments or structures, or developed agriculture, without the civilizing influence of a superior race, is just fundamentally, historically racist. As hard as Hancock tries to rephrase his claims to avoid this, it still stands at the heart of his theories. And regardless, there is no evidence that the builders of Göbekli Tepe had developed agriculture. Rather, archaeologists believe it was built by nomadic hunter-gatherers as a sanctuary rather than as a permanent dwelling place. And though Hancock and others rail against “orthodox” archaeologists refusing to change their views of prehistory, and even resorting to cover-ups to hide finds that challenge their established ideas, the very fact that Göbekli Tepe challenged views of hunter-gatherers, resulting in a new understanding of their culture in the Near East, proves that archaeology adapts to new information when evidence merits a change in our understanding. But Graham Hancock complains that scholars won’t accept his claims for which he offers no evidence. There is nothing connecting Göbekli Tepe or the people who built it to geographically distant sites, which we would expect to find if Atlanteans civilized the rest of the world as well, and more importantly, agriculture, the technology he believes they spread, clearly developed independently, as ancient agricultural civilizations had no common crop. If Atlanteans had really gone around teaching hunter-gatherers all over the world how to grow crops, it is odd that they wouldn’t have carried the same crops to every part of the world.

But this episode is really about the notion of lost high technology, and Graham Hancock doesn’t just suggest that his Atlanteans were technologically advanced compared to the hunter-gatherer cultures that he envisions Atlantis in contact with. This is not the difference between a crop-growing culture and a nomadic culture. In his own words, he imagines that a “realistic parallel for the level of science attained [by this proposed lost civilization] would be with Europe and the newly formed United States in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries.” So what does that mean? Well, such a civilization’s mastery of electricity would only be in its beginning phases. But it would have mastered steam power and the mechanization of industry. It would seem that some folktales about such technology would have survived, but the most advanced technology Plato mentions his fictional Atlantis having mastered is metallurgy, specifically in regards to the mysterious metal orichalcum, which he claims “is now only a name and was then something more than a name,” saying it was more precious than gold, and birthing a legend about a lost or unknown metal. However, later writers, such as Cicero wrote about orichalcum being a kind of copper alloy. Whatever it was—a specific allow, a metal we now have a different name for, an ore whose mines were depleted—this element of the story does indicate ancient metallurgy. Though Plato describes nothing that could be interpreted as steam-powered machinery, certainly for any such machines to be made, mastery of metalwork is a prerequisite. So how could we prove or disprove the idea? Well, Graham Hancock recently arranged a debate with archaeologist Flint Dibble on Joe Rogan’s podcast, and when Dibble proved that Hancock had no evidence for his claims, Hancock went into face-saving mode, afterward saying he’d been conned by Dibble, even though Hancock had personally chosen Dibble as his debate opponent. Dibble simply pointed out that ice core analysis can prove when cultures were engaging in metallurgy and can determine whether there was industrial activity in a given historical age, as the ice would trap the emissions of such technology. After their debate, Graham Hancock only objected that the paper Dibble referred to in making this point did not actually test ice cores from the Stone Age, demanding that Dibble produce ice core evidence from the Stone Age to disprove his hypothesis. Well, that is not really how the making and supporting of claims works. The burden of proof is not on others to disprove the unsupported claims Hancock makes. He needs to produce ice core evidence that proves his thesis. This should now be the focus of his efforts, and he cannot claim that no one has taken such ice cores or that no one has studied them, as Antarctic ice cores going back two million years have been extracted and studied to learn about the content of atmospheric gases, with especial focus on the last 100,000 years. So if Graham Hancock can’t produce any such ice cores demonstrating that an advanced industrial civilization was engaging in metallurgy 12000 years ago, it’s because the ice cores actually stand as proof that this wasn’t happening, which is what all actual experts have been saying for years. And in the end, even Hancock admits there is not evidence for his theory. He may hem and haw that archaeologists don’t study enough sites or don’t investigate the right places to find the evidence he says is out there, but what reason is there to believe this evidence exists? When he admits that there is no evidence, what reason even is there for a debate on the topic?

Until next time, ask yourself, what harms might these pseudohistorical ideas cause? A friend recently suggested that Joe Rogan’s podcast is just the new Coast to Coast AM, and that I shouldn’t be bothered by the platforming of fringe claims on it. I in turn would argue that shows like Coas to Coast paved the way for the modern media dissemination of pseudohistory and pseudoscience that pervades our culture today and erodes trust in nor only academia but all important cultural institutions and even the concept of empirical knowledge and verifiable truth. It is harmful indeed.

Ancient High Technology - Part Two: Electric Boogaloo

Follow and Support Us!