Lies & Statistics and Gobekli Tepe | A Response to Martin Sweatman
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 10 ธ.ค. 2021
- My video on the Zodiac at Gobekli Tepe looked at a fringe theory by Dr. Martin Sweatman with a critical eye. Dr. Sweatman did not take kindly to the criticism and has recently responded to my video, and so here I give my thoughts on his response. The "lies" referred to in the title are those that Dr. Sweatman claims I perpetrated, and "statistics" refers to his proofs, but as you may know, when misused, statistics might as well be lies.
After viewing, come back to the notes here for further information.
►DOWNLOAD Professor Miano's free e-booklet: "Why Ancient History Matters":
mailchi.mp/a402112ea4db/why-a...
►SUBSCRIBE to the World of Antiquity TH-cam Channel for great travel videos about ancient ruins and ancient history museums.
► SUPPORT THIS CHANNEL
Supporters get access to behind-the-scenes videos, early-release videos, course discounts and more! / worldofantiquity
FTC Disclaimer Notice: Some of the links here may be affiliate links, meaning that if you click on them and purchase something on another website, I get a small commission. It doesn't cost you any extra, but I thought you should know! It does help support the channel.
► REFERENCES
My two original videos on the Zodiac:
• How old is the ZODIAC?...
• Is the Zodiac at GOBEK...
Martin Sweatman's response to the second video:
• Greek constellations a...
Bradley Schaefer's two articles:
sci-hub.se/doi.org/10...
sci-hub.se/10.1038/scientific...
Martin Sweatman's published article on his statistical test:
maajournal.com/Issues/2017/Vol...
Martin Sweatman's article on Graham Hancock's website:
grahamhancock.com/sweatmanm1/
Professor Miano's handy guide for learning, "How to Know Stuff," is available here:
www.amazon.com/How-Know-Stuff...
Follow Professor Miano on social media:
►FACEBOOK: / drdavidmiano
►TWITTER: / drdavidmiano
►INSTAGRAM: / drmiano
![บุกร้านไอศกรีม VJ วุ้นเส้น !!!! [ดูคลิปเต็มหน้าช่อง] #Short | PANG ORNHIRA](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/g549nEhKZdc/mqdefault.jpg)
Texas sharpshooter fallacy in four easy steps:
1. Throw a dart out the window of a plane.
2. Land plane.
3. Draw target around arrow.
4. Claim astronomical odds.
This is all Dr Sweatman does. It's sleight of hand.
Also, as someone who knows linear algebra rather well, I can assure you that you _can_ compare dots. It's utterly absurd to claim a comparison requires lines.
@@stargrazer1597 You do realise I can read the first comment you deleted in my notifications. Not exactly classy, was it?
@@davidmurphy563 You reek of pettiness.Your snarky comments and childish insults compounded with your lack comedic skills while trying to appear intelligent,now that's funny.
I occasionally edit and delete some comments from time to time,you need to download a dictionary.Because your picture is right beside classless.
@@stargrazer1597 Are you ok? Maybe you can think about turning off your device and heading out for a nice long walk for yourself.
@@stargrazer1597 It's a little scary how easily triggered you are.
Sweatman's tone in his entire video reveals some deeply rooted insecurities in my opinion. It all reads to me as "how dare this person challenge me, a leader in the field of [whatever he claims to be am expert in]". The fact that he refers to archeologists and historians as priests of a false religion is particularly damning in my opinion. It's a shame too because his theories are interesting he just doesn't defend them very well. I think you did a much better job engaging with this than I could have.
It’s incredibly ironic how he uses his expertise in mechanical statistics to elevate himself over archeologists and historians in a subject that specifically pertains to archeology and history. All while complaining that World of Antiquity is trying to discredit him for being a mathematician/chemist. Then to top it off he indulges in saying one of the most cliché anti-intellectual soundbites under the sun. I can’t imagine he’d like it very much if a civil engineer showed up and claimed his entire field was a sham and then accused him of being part of a cabal gatekeeping chemistry and mathematics from the masses. World of Antiquity was incredibly charitable to his views all things considered. I can’t imagine he’d react with the same amount grace.
@@nathancrudup9603 He does the same with his Younger Dryas Impact debate channel. He goes through papers that debunk his hypothesis and tells Geologists they did their Geology wrong. He also calls it a 'Debate' channel when he doesn't EVER contact ANY author of ANY paper that he flat out claims he is 'debunking' for clarification nor does he give them a chance to respond to his assertions. He is being completely hypocritical in his attacks on WoT.
The part about historians and archeologists being high priests, disseminating information to make people believe a certain narrative, is particularly dangerous. It sounds innocuous, but then you start asking questions about who's spreading these narratives and why. You find yourself watching videos about how a particular group of people control academia and the media. It's very dangerous and leads people down the path of conspiracy, and not actual, empirically proven conspiracies like MK Ultra, but flat earth tier conspiracy.
@@swirvinbirds1971 At that point there’s no way he’s not either a clinical narcissist or massive grifter. I couldn’t imagine getting a higher education, realizing how much there is to know in a particular subject, and grinding my way up to a master’s degree or a doctorate just to turn around and call other professionals (broadly, as an entire community) fakes who don’t know what they’re doing. The man must have a monolithic ego.
@@aureliusp1330 Exactly, it may not seem like a big deal on the surface, but if you can get people to believe in a false and glorified past that they will defend regardless of evidence just because it’s more interesting to them and strokes their ego to have such “forbidden knowledge”.. well you can get them to believe literally anything. Including things as preposterous as a flat earth, lizard people or a global cabal that injects tortured baby juice into themselves to stay eternally young. All this to say he’s employing the exact same rhetoric as conspiracy peddlers online by appealing to his audience’s own hubris and paranoia. It wouldn’t be surprising at all if his online presence was contributing to the massive conspiracy rabbit hole that’s leading people towards more and more extremist ideologies.
I'm going to be the first to admit that as an actual chemical engineer, I'm not an expert in ancient scripture, ancient philosophy, ancient writing, ancient symbols, or the zodiac. Understanding and identifying the shape of a molecule and how the various atoms arrange themselves physically isn't relevant to identifying any of those items nor zodiac symbols in any fashion. I'm not seeing how Sweatman would be any better at it than an actual archeologist who spends their entire lives and academic career on those fields. Ancient symbols aren't based on physical properties of the universe or even atomic structures. They're based on people's imagination at the time. The one thing science CAN'T predict with any certainty.
Bravo! When Sweatman said the images would follow the rules of physics my eyes popped out of my head
I have to be honest that was an exercise in frustration. Dr. Sweatman was incredibly disrespectful, petty, and honestly sounded like a petulant child lashing out. I'm amazed you could be so calm and professional. And I've lost a great deal of respect for Dr. Sweatman as well.
Sweatman sounds like I used to, when I thought using a sarcastic, condescending tone, would make me sound intelligent, when I was like 13
my guess is that sweatman is a big fan of Simon Cowell
I'm not for sweatman either..
You should read Dr Sweatman's book.....Prehistory Decoded. He has been to Turkey and explored several of the Tepe sites and the associated museums. Open your minds!!
@@joycesweatman965 Your husband's a bit of a prick.
Alternatively, Sweatman, you should come up with more unique names for your fake accounts
This is so much better than TH-cam boxing! His test seems ridiculous to me, but I genuinely am terrible at basic maths.
I find that idea you could do a maths test to decipher ancient art fundamentally flawed. Humans aren’t perfectly logical. The creators of gobekli tepe undoubtedly imbued the pillar with all sorts emotion and religious ideas and symbolism.
Nonsense idea, nonsense test but brilliant video!
Hear hear! Well said!
Yes, that basic math jibe was a particularly awful moment, I must say! Great to see you here Stefan - both you and David have had a large influence on me and have helped to reign in my more outlandish musings and pondering. I still question things but thanks to you guys, in a much more reasoned, responsible and informed manner. For example, I still find it hard to believe that man was completely incapable of anything before the younger dryas period - even if the climate was less temperate and so volatile. I still think absence of evidence isn’t necessarily evidence of absence - especially when going so far back in time. Cheers 👍
My degree is in Fisheries & Aquaculture so I have absolutely no training or education in either Archeology nor Mathematics... But I can clearly see the man starts with his conclusion and his conclusion is effecting his mathmatical formula.
Numbers and math can be played with to give you all sorts of answers... It doesn't mean it's the correct answer.
You guys should fight!
Yea the Human brain is not well built for math, proven by our inventing the abacus, slide-rules and calculators. Less than 1 in a million of us can compete with a calculator the size of a matchbook made in the 80's.
I love how dedicated you are to steelmanning arguments and coming in undying good faith, to the point of saying he "misremembered"
Dr Sweatman asserts at 10:00, that his expertise in statistical mechanics, and background in the configurations of atoms and molecules “is exactly the kind of expertise that you can use in decoding the symbols at Göbekli Tepe”. This is utter tosh. I’m a linguist and also an artist, I use my linguistic skills to decipher foreign language texts, and my artistic skills to draw pictures. If you gave me a chemistry question to solve, I wouldn’t have a clue, likewise if you gave Dr Sweatman a page of the Greek New Testament to translate and interpret, he probably wouldn’t have a clue, or if you asked him to decipher the hidden symbolism in a Hieronymous Bosch painting, etc. Scientists don’t have a monopoly of science: linguistics is a science, as is archaeology, and art is highly technical. The science of symbols is called “semiotics” from the Greek “semeion” meaning a symbol. Dr Sweatman needs to do a course in this subject, as well as sculpture, drawing, zoology and archaeology, plus a few ancient languages, before he opens his yap on topics he knows nothing about. He’s making a complete fool of himself.
I would forgive his lack of languages, if he had a valid argument. So far, I haven't seen that.
What?!! You mean to say that Robert Langdon is not really a symbologist at Harvard AND that the gods have NO chariots? I take that as an ad hominem and slanderous attack and I will reply with a bunch of ad hominem and slanderous attacks in righteous anger!!! So there!
Its just typical STEM chavanism.
Fellow academic in Psychology here. As a Brit I'm embarrassed by the tone and language of Sweatman. As a Scot I'm embarrassed that an academic at a Scottish University would speak to another academic like that.
Sweatman, you published a book for popular consumption. While you may have peer reviewed publications of this "stuff" (citations? IFs?). We both know that we don't have to worry about all that nonsense with a £8.99 from WHSmith's in Edinburgh Airport, do we? These types of books allow authors the "freedom" to "flesh out" their ideas (aka you can say whatever you want so long as it doesn't get you arrested or sued). So why on earth would anyone attempt to get a critique of this "stuff" published in a peer reviewed journal? Of course, you'd practically have a freebie pub on your hand. My suggestion would be to go to a journal that gives the original author final reply. You published one of these books for mass consumption so the popular arena of mass critique, TH-cam, seems fitting.
Sweatman throws "science" around like there is an agreed definition. He might want to familiarise himself with philosophy of science. The experimental method is one way of defining it but there isn't consensus that THAT is THE definition. Likewise, "hypothesis" was referres to a lot but what about the null hypohesis? What exactly is Sweatman trying to disprove?
I am just appalled by Sweatman's attitude. Sweatman is insulted at being referred to as a Chemical Engineer? Sweatman stomps into a completely different discipline, insults an academic of ancient history's intellect, training, education, and knowledge of their own discipline, and infers the historian is ignorant about antiquity to the point of knowing nothing, infers that historians and archaelogists are ignorant of history, archaeology, "science" and "maths", and infers that archaeology is not a "science".
Thank the lordee that a guy wiv a spanna an' knows nuffin about some old rocks n stuff came along to save us
Just as there are biologists who reject evolution as established scientific fact there are fringe people in archaeology who offer ridiculous theories that have no supporting evidence that has survived peer review.
This happens more than you think. In fact, academic types are extremely rude to each other. They care more about their own theories than anything
@@bowhunter8532
According to whom? Scholars are extremely collegiate and civil in such exchanges.
What a lot of people don't understand is that archaeology is an umbrella term that includes many disciplines. Someone may say an archaeologist isn't a scientist, but is a geologist a scientist? Because many geologists work under the archaeology umbrella. Dating experts (and there are many different dating techniques) are also scientists. Do they stop being scientists when working under the archaeology umbrella? It shows a lack of understanding on his part.
@@garymaidman625
So true! I suggest people read the The Death of Expertise: The Campaign Against Established Knowledge and Why it Matters is a 2017 nonfiction book by Tom Nichols.
The internet has seen an explosion of crackpots like Graham Hancock masquerading as legitimate researchers. Like here anyone who challenges them is simply folded into the conspiracy against them. It’s exactly the same logic that underpins the Flat Earth movement and their research.
I'm kind of surprised a scientist employed by the University of Edinburgh would be so disrespectful in continually calling you "David" in what seems a rather condescending manner, considering you refer to him as Dr Sweatman throughout your video. Honestly, his whole critique is rather entirely ad hominem and petty.
This dude again,
"David " is the smartest , just ask him
@@mchaelkeith1519 what? Dr. Miano has trained in this field, for a very long time, and yet Sweatman refuses to give him the same respect as Dr. Miano gives to Sweatman. It's pathetic.
Have you read Dr Sweatman's book....Prehistory Decoded? Interesting book .....open up your minds. I gather Dr Sweatman has visited many of the ancient Tepe sites in Turkey and carried out many years of research in this field. He may be a mathematician and physicist but he is also apparently quite knowledgeable about the ancient world.
@@joycesweatman965 He's also completely biased towards his pet theory and pretends he's persecuted by the historical community.
Joyce, did you accompany him on those visits?
"Science begins with a guess. No justification for the guess is needed."
This right here betrays his entire philosophy and actually makes it sound like he has less understanding of the scientific method and hypothesis formulation. A good structured and sound hypothesis is based on observation of phenomena combined occasionally with pre-existing knowledge, we see something happen because of some conditions that leads to a result. Or we see the results of some unknown event but from what we might already know we can piece together what happened. Justification is needed to structure a hypothesis otherwise you might as well be chasing silly or outright impossible situations.
To take an ancient history example let's say we unearth the ruins of a battle where a legion of Roman troops were wiped out somewhere in the Mediterranean, leaving behind only their remains and no information of their attackers. Is it justified to say that they fought an army from China who easily wiped them out then went home without a trace left behind? Or instead knowing the local regions we could say it was a more local foreign force, or a gaelic tribe, or maybe by dating the armour we find that it was from the time of the Punic wars and they could have been victims of Hannibal's march towards Italy. Whilst you'd still need a lot of work to prove those hypotheses some become more likely than others based on what evidence is there to justify creating them.
An excellent point. I think the issue is that academics generally learn by doing and not by being directly taught a method. The Scientific or scholarly Method is really more a product of philosophers trying to justify how academic knowledge is generated, rather than how it actually is. That's not a problem in itself, but clearly some people get an afternoon of Popper and think they've got the keys to the universe.
@@michaelkelly1267 no, the scientific method is the only sound way to test and learn about the universe around us. It has very little, if any, to do with philosophy.
That line from Sweatman really bothered me too and you've articulated why better than I ever could. Well said.
@@MaryAnnNytowl What do you think philosophy is? Like, you just described a philosophical concept. Plus, history itself doesn't follow a scientific method, so are you saying that history isn't sound?
@@MaryAnnNytowl Scientific methodology is very much informed by philosophy. The study of every field is. There's no such thing as philosophy free science. As Michael said, what you're expressing right now is an example of positivism. A philosophical concept. This is why I encourage taking courses on the philosophy of your field if you can even if what you're doing isn't a liberal art etc. Philosophy of Science is a fascinating topic and I feel like it would be a genuine improvement for people to take a more nuanced and human look at why they think what they do. Philosophy of mathematics is even better if you ask me.
I just wanted to leave a comment saying for some reason this video really inspired me to continue pursuing a PhD in Ancient History. Thank you so much Dr. Miano for bringing attention and care to something you love that it inspires the same feelings in others!
Great to hear! Thanks, Travis.
@counselthyself Lots of interesting ideas. The only thing you wrote that seems to have a bearing on the subject of this video is your idea that, because our ancestors were smarter than us, that must mean the Gobekli Tepe pillars have higher thoughts written on them. One does not follow from the other, because not every thought a smart person has is special, and not every person with a large brain is a philosopher or scientist. Possibility is not the same as probability. History is based on evidence.
@counselthyself *the evidence of 12 is throughout the written and symbolic history of civilization, it's the months of the year today on one level.*
We all agree that the number 12 has been significant through history. What does that have to do with Gobekli Tepe?
*have you ever heard of the mithraic Tauroctony?*
Of course.
*the same principles apply across all fertile crescent religions (and beyond).*
What principle? Mithras slaying a bull is a motif, not a principle. Where is the Mithraic tauroctony at Gobekli Tepe?
*spring (taurus) and fall (scorpio), sunrise and sunset. duality, all matter is polarized like the magnetosphere of the earth.*
Where is Scorpio in the Mithraic tauroctony? Where is the polarization in the Mithraic tauroctony? Where is any of this at Gobekli Tepe?
@counselthyself *"Where is the Mithraic tauroctony at Gobekli Tepe?" the 'baskets'.*
Maybe after you draw it in with a magic marker.
@counselthyself Does anyone here know what this person is even talking about?
I had no previous opinion about the site, nor was I particularly familiar of either of the parties here, but I feel so embarrassed on behalf of Dr. Sweatman. To me he sounded exactly like those who comment on every TH-cam video about the pyramids "they were made over 10k years ago", "not possible for humans to lift a block of x tons to y height", "there is indisputable evidence of technology far more advanced than ours". One of those who completely ignore the research, science, material evidence and experiments and come up with their hypothesis which should not be objected.
Good job David, sorry I don't know your titles nor background (just what Sweatman was repeating over and over again, David 😂), but this was a good video and you earned another subscriber.
Thanks, and welcome!
As a professional Statistician, I am SO tired of Engineers, Economists, Historians, Archeologists, etc. pretending to understand Statistics and how to apply it. There is NO rigour here! The fact that the Engineer insisted that there is, discredits him and destroys his credibility.
Dr Sweatman is not an Engineer! Check the University of Edinburgh website and you will see the 50 scientific papers he has had published. Amongst other things he is a mathematician/physicist but works in the Chemical Engineering Department at the university.
@@joycesweatman965 He is not a Statistician. Very few Mathematicians are.
@@barrybogart5436 I never said he was a statistician.
I studied physics. I studied some probability and statistics in the course of that. Quantum mechanics, statistical mechanics, error propagation. Sure doesn't qualify me to, say, design a questionnaire, or analyze hypothesis testing in psychology. But I do know enough to know that there are things I don't know.
Oh fantastic... I really wanted to hear some "educated" guys, because he is so blinking condescending the whole way through ... I think David was a class act too 🙊🤣
I think Sweatman LOVES that you mentioned his name. It’s the only way he stays relevant. The smugness that he exhibits is simply unreal.
And you know all about him??? What do you know about the man?
@@joycesweatman965
After listening to them both I got a similar impression and I know nothing of either of them.
@@Etymon-jt3zw Perhaps you should attempt to get to know the man and only then will you realise that there is nothing smug or pretentious about him!
He loves it so much he needs his wife or daughter to come on TH-cam to defend him, lol
@@joycesweatman965 found Sweatmans wifu^^^^
The last year or so I've gone down the Brian Foerster/Uncharted X rabbit hole and it was making some sense to me but the lack of evidence lead me to wanting to hear the other side via a debate or something. This channel came up on my recommended list at the right time. They do make great videos and I still watch but their conclusions about what they are seeing I don't put much stock in anymore. Cheers.
Happy you found us!
Yes, I also enjoy videos by those creators, David's breakdown of Uncharted X video about precision was on point however.
Wow same thing happened to me.. I also went down that rabbit hole and as much as I would love that somehow that stuff could have some truth to it, reality needs reliable proof.
Awesome!! I'm glad you looked at both sides of a debate and drew a logical conclusion. Wish more people would do this.....
"They do make great videos and I still watch but their conclusions about what they are seeing I don't put much stock in anymore."
In one Foerster literally asks the opinion of a geologist he brought on tour with him about whether a piece of rock has been blasted or not.
The geologist doesn't repeat his schlock so he immediately stops talking to her and childishly says he doesn't buy it in red text on the video instead of saying so in person in a way that would betray his lack of willingness to debate with real scientists.
I used to be a huge fan of Martin Sweatman's TH-cam channel. He broke down every paper done on the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis and I watched everyone of them. It was a ton of work and I appreciate him doing it. I though he was an expert because of his background and I didn't notice his background was almost entirely unrelated to those scientific papers. When Professor Miano came along last year and covered Sweatman I was left shocked and disappointed. I haven't been back to Sweatmans channel since then because I can no longer take him seriously. Martin's response to Miano is honestly not surprising at this point. At first I thought he was well intentioned but misguided but now I'm almost certain he's a grifter. He's just panning gold from that Pseudo Science River that has been flowing around the world like the Ol' Miss in recent years. Very disappointing. Thank you Professor for this follow up video.
I checked out his playlist on the Younger Dryas. The question one needs to ask of him is - so what? Paleoclimatologists catalog Earth's past. If the YD was caused or affected by an impact - so what? Neat bit to put in the climatologist's catalogue, for but for Sweatman it seems to be important for alternative reasons. He has an agenda, that is not about a better understanding of Earth's climate.
@@TheDanEdwards you'll also notice how he dishonestly calls it a 'debate' channel when he allows no debate. He doesn't give the authors a chance to respond to his criticisms of their work, he sits there and CLAIMS he is debunking their work. It's simply him crapping on other people's work to uplift his own hypothesis and claims.
The man is frankly a hypocrite for attacking Dr. Miano and insinuating what he himself blatantly does on his own channel.
"panning gold from that Pseudo Science River...." so true lol.. I used to not care much about these grifters, but these days the kind of discourse such people engage in reminds me too much of the mis - and disinformation, and lies circulating related to politics and society by yellow journalism (aka cable news, certain online media) and the like.
Why would he need to pan for gold, as you say, in a Pseudo Science River?
That's what alchemy is for!
@@kenlieck7756 Haha, you jest but I'm shocked Alchemy hasn't had a huge resurgence with all the Pseudo Science that has seen an explosion of interest lately. For the Year 2022 if one us wanted to make it rich Panning for this Gold start an Alchemy TH-cam Channel. It'll be bigger than Flat Earth or Fake Moon Landing channels!
This reminds me of an economics debate I had with a PhD Psychologist. Being accustomed to brow-beating college freshmen, he was stunned to have his premises challenged and completely dismantled.
What about economics were you debating over
Yes! Exactly this. I was a physics major for two years before switching to philosophy/English. I loved physics but wasn't crazy about the engineering track I was headed for.
Aaanyway, some of the "hard" science people from physics/chemistry view other more social disciplines almost paternalistically and vastly oversimplify and underestimate the nuanced complexities in those fields.
I suspect Dr. Sweatman's dig about "basic" math and overconfident plunge into multidisciplinary archaeology stems from this.
Sweatman's no Feynman (with a genuine, open-minded curiousity about the world) but a book promoter who demands binary engineering exactitude from the world.
It's comical Sweatman brings up the strawman fallacy, much like when the person that passes gas in an enclosed space with others immediately exclaims that they can't believe someone farted, how dare they. Sweatman is the one who farted in this elevator and if he isn't careful he may soon be a felon for the horrific beating he gave the strawmen of his own creation.
His initial premise is patently bizarre, that he is more qualified than those actually in an associated field by being from a completely unassociated field. I hope these same standards don't spill over to his every day life because he'll soon find that the expert garbage man that he got to draw up the blueprints for his house actually wasn't better than an architect, the expert dog walker he got to fix his cars engine problems isn't getting him very far, and the expert milkman he enlisted to do his heart surgery might not be able to perform up to the desired standards.
I understand that Sweatman feels offended that his theories are being challenged, but he has to disengage his opinions and theories from his person. He seems personally wounded by any disagreement whatsoever and obviously feels the need to slander those that do their due diligence to question his ideas.
For someone that wants to seem so eager to have his work held up to peer review, he only suggests it in order to dissuade that very thing from happening because he knows exactly how much work and time would have to go into even disproving the most blatant of falsities through the academic process. He knows that few would find his claims containing such incorrect assertions worth the time they would have to dedicate out of their professional time when they could be publishing on their own projects. It's a slimy tactic, but what else would we expect from someone who attempts to argue in such poor faith.
I started a drinking game for the ad hominems, now I'm dying of alcohol poisoning
I choose to take your post literally, and that you should be awarded the Guinness record for best drunk poster on the Internet. Congratulations! :)
Here's the ultimate Achilles' Heel of Sweatman's elaborate fantasy. He arbitrarily chose the free astronomy program Stellarium and its constellation and asterism lines connecting stars in the present western tradition. He then used those lines, totally unknown by ancients, to "analyze" placement but discarding the orientation of carvings from 10k years ago.
But why use the modern western lines? Those aren't ALL Stellarium makes available, you know. He could have picked different constellation and asterism lines from alternate cultures, for instance Babylonian - MUL.APIN, or Babylonian - Selucid, or Egyptian, or Macedonian, Greek (according to the Almagest, the globe of the Atlas Farnese Statue Sweatman likes so much, or from the Leiden Aratea). Even among modern Western sky lines, he could have picked that used by Sky & Telescope magazine, or H. A. Rey, or O. Hlad, in addition to the IAU lines he ARBITRARILY chose. Yes, he could have used authentic lines from ancient Greek astronomy or even earlier in the Babylonian age, but Sweatman arbitrarily chose to cherry pick from the vast array of choices, including much more appropriate ones relating to his "theory."
Also, Stellarium, unlike the astronomy program I prefer, Cartes du Ciel, has no concept of proper motion of stars built into the program. Proper motion is motion at right angles to our line of view, changing the position of the star in relation to all the other stars over time. Some stars have moved considerably from their historical positions in 10,000 BCE from today. Stellarium specifically says they make no account for stars moving across space over time. A GOOD astronomical program would have shown him the different positions of the stars then as opposed to today and that would change every angle he used! So he used the wrong angles, and had he chosen the correct sky map, the stars wouldn't have been in the correct historical position in Stellarium.
There is a problem with his chart, published in the Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, Vol. 17, No 1, (2017), pp. 233-250. He shows the Sun at 13:01 and 4 seconds in the afternoon only 45º in altitude! In reality, it would be plotted 77º high at that hour on that date from Gobekli Tepe on September 11 of that or any other year, for that matter. Something is very wrong with his published sky map.
Also, the positions of the stars in relation to each other change very little over even 2000 years. He can't use a defective map of stars from Stellarium to fix the date of the pillar, even if his other pipe dreams had a fart's chance in a hurricane of being correct.
Applying statistics, even valid statistics to nonsense, yields utter nonsense. Sweatman should confine is activities to the mathematical and statistical realms in which he is qualified and stay out of history, archaeology and astronomy, which he is ignorant of, or no more qualified than a layman. Even in his peer reviewed journal (if it is indeed peer reviewed at all) the reviewers wouldn't have my knowledge of astronomy and astronomy software to expose truly sophomoric errors on Sweatman's part.
I wish I could send you diagrams, links to Cartes du Ciel, screen prints of star charts, etc to prove I'm not making any of this up, but TH-cam has decided that genuine exchange of information using the defining brilliance of the Internet, the hyperlink, is forbidden here in the comment section. I hope I've given sufficient information so that you can verify my contentions for yourself.
>Also, Stellarium, unlike the astronomy program I prefer, Cartes du Ciel, has no concept of proper motion of stars built into the program
Wow. That's really cool. And really important for work along these lines.
@@andrewbroeker9819 Cartes du Ciel uses the Gaia EDR3 database of 1.8 billion stars with astrometry on spectral type, variability, proper motion, radial velocity and shoe size, down to magnitude 21. So unlike Stellarium, when you step back 12000 years you see the stars in their actual positions for that time. It's hard to believe the nativity of an expert on statistics who blindly stumbles into multiple fatal errors.
@@RockinRobbins13 Yeah. I wouldn't have known where to start with the simulation, but I at least knew that proper motion is a big deal.
@@andrewbroeker9819 Yes, it's a huge deal that reduces Sweatman's inappropriate and wrongly applied statistics to a bad joke that's not even funny.
@@RockinRobbins13 "these stone carvings were primitive pop-up ad for Stellarium!" ~Dr Sweatman, probably.
Did he really say the his degree in chemical engineering makes him more qualified to discuss Gobekli Tepe than the archeologists? 12:15. You have to be a raging narcissist to think you know better than people whose job it is to study/dig at Gobekli Tepe.
Dr Sweatman is a Physicist working in the Chemical Engineering dept of University of Edinburgh. He has been to G.T and associated museum twice. Have you read his book? You really should then you would understand what's at stake here!!!
@@joycesweatman965 Dr. Sweatman's money train. You should know this by now.
@@joycesweatman965 What is at stake here? Please tell. You sound very unhinged in my opinion.
@@1sanitat1 ..your opinion!
@@joycesweatman965 My opinion isn't at stake here. Try again.
You're great. I so appreciate the work you're doing. This guy's unsubstantiated intro gave me a headache, I don't know how you were able to make it through this process! Thanks again for taking the time to respond in such a dignified way, it's truly impressive, and something I hope to emulate more often.
One of the best things about your channel is that you critique ideas rather than slamming the ppl who present them.
Hats off for keeping calm and logical, his arrogance is infuriating.
As someone who only came across your channel very recently, I just wanted to say you are doing a great job and I have really enjoyed everything I have watched thus far! I really appreciate your willingness to engage with and analyze many of these so called "fringe" theories that so many other historians, scientists, and archaeologists act as if they are too good or "professional" to even mention, much less critique.
Your debates, criticisms, and analyses are carried out in manner which appear to be honest (without any intentional misrepresentation or "dirty" debate tactics) and respectful to those whose views you are challenging. Obviously, many people are not going to respond well to being challenged, regardless of how respectful you are, but I do believe you attempt to be as cordial as possible, even when those you challenge respond in a way that isn't. I'm glad I found your channel and I really look forward to watching all of your current and future content!
You are soooooo naive!
I'm sorry you had to do this but I appreciate the need. Your information was educational and you reinforced your points with class. Dr. Sweatman should appreciate the free advertising he received even though it proves his argument fallacious.
You have the patience of a saint. I usually give up when nutjobs break out the "STRAWMAN!" garbage. It scares me that a chemical engineering professor seems to have no clue about scientific method and stastical analysis. And also that he claims you're slandering him (which you're not) and then slanders you. Good on you for staying the high road.
I think you have your facts incorrect. Dr Sweatman is an Associate Professor at the University of Edinburgh and by profession is a Theoretical Physicist, so he obviously knows a great deal about scientific methods, otherwise he would not hold this position!
Dr Sweatman first posted his G.T. video about 18 months ago, and Dr Miano misinterpreted it. Have you seen that first video?
@@joycesweatman965 yes, I have. But he clearly doesn't understand the scientific method if he designs his experiments so that they will ALWAYS have the same result, even if you do it "wrong". You need to design an experiment that can test your hypothesis - it needs to have clear affirmative and negative results. The way he designed his "experiment" was simply to look at the stars and the pictures and be like "yeah, I think this looks like that one. I'll give it a score of 7". That is clearly not an experiment at all. I, like all scientifically-minded people, am totally open to new evidence, but not from "scientists" who slander and do subjective experiments and ignore scientific standards.
@@miketheburns I think Dr Sweatman understands exactly the scientific methods . If you don't get it that's your problem. You have abdolutely no idea what his thoughts were when experimenting so don't suggest he's ignoring scientific standards.
@@joycesweatman965 There are academics at my former university who state that Humans can change sex and that Men can fall pregnant. Your appeal to authority fallacy is duly noted and rejected. Try harder.
Absolutely. Dr Miano always so politely blows people away. So great. Yet this guy keeps saying Dr M is slandering him when he clearly is disputing faults in his claims and that's all. Then he slanders Dr.Miano all over the place. These people,yes I agree...Dr M's patience is especially great with the worst of claims. I don't know how he does it. It's his life work and he's defending it. Good for him.⭐⭐⭐
Sweatman: I've never said I believe in ancient high technology. That is slander and had Prof. Miano read my book he would know that,
Prof. Miano: *Quotes Sweatman's book where he says the Sphinx was built by ancient high technology.*
I think you really need to read Dr Sweatman's book to get the true facts of what he really wrote. Somehow David Miano is twisting the facts. There is no mention in Prehistory Decoded of Dr Sweatman believing in ancient high technology. I've read his book and I couldn't find it!!!
@@joycesweatman965 your literally his relative lol
@@Number1FanProductions Too funny 😂😭😂
In my opinion, when people use high technology, they automatically think ufo's or other mumbo jumbo, but I've heard it used in a sensible way that just means that ancient people were not nuckle draggers. For ancient people, the building techniques were high technology.
@@StelleenBlack Absolutely. I think Dr Sweatman raised the point that ancient man was no different to modern man. He doesn't believe in aliens or a superior ancient high technology. Someone has been misquoting him....and then answering the misquotes. I wonder who??
David; you’re doing the good work. Thanks for actually debating these folks. Other academics don’t bother and someone has to. And thanks and not stooping to Sweatman who seems to think getting an article through a journal’s peer review means it’s factually correct.
Wow, the absolute AUDACITY of Martin to say that you, having a background in the historical ancient eastern Mediterranean, is somehow less relevant to the prehistoric ancient near East than, a chemical engineering and statistics background. That’s honestly some gross ego showing from Sweatman.
@@seanbeadles7421 "You don't have the qualifications to critic the hypothesis I made up which seems to allow my qualifications and fields of expertise to be translated into a more distant field where it most likely shouldn't be relevant/relatable. I'm just uniquely intelligent to see this pattern where no one else has."
@@theonlylunarmage it’s actually kind of embarrassing for a scientist to have that attitude
@@seanbeadles7421
As well, Martin assumes that someone who studied History didn't study statistics or mathematics. I studied Anthropolgy, minoring in History, and I studied statistics at each level of my academic education. How on earth can you conduct scientific research, even social research, without studying statistics?
@@seanbeadles7421 I've had interactions with Dr. Sweatman before and yes, the man has a very large ego that is wounded easily.
He does the same with his Younger Dryas Impact debate channel. He tells Geologists they did their Geology wrong. 😂
The problem I find with Sweatmans test is that as he explains it in this video it doesn’t test whether the animals symbols actually are constellations. All he is doing is testing, based on the assumption that the animals are consellations, which of his arbitrarily chosen animals best fits an arbitrarily chosen constellation. And of course his test then shows that one of them fits the contellation bests. So what, we still don’t know If they actually where constellations. You could do the exact same test with the characters on Spongebob and see which one best fits the constellation of Orion, you would definently get a best fit for one of them better than the others but that in no way means that that character was in any way based on the Orion constellation. So as described in this video his test is worthless If its aim is to prove that those animals actually represent constellations.
I think you will find that he has used some proven scientific methology to test his hypothesis. Read his book....Prehistory Decoded....its all in there.....I read it ages ago!
@@joycesweatman965Give it up, Joyce. No one was buying it two years ago or one year ago, and no one is going to buy it now. You are all over this comment section singing the praises of Sweatman, but I noticed you had no response to, for example, the comments from RockinRobbins13 demonstrating that Sweatman's use of Stellarium was in error, or any of the other comments providing additional evidence of the failures of his "hypothesis".
Also, I'm 100% sure your names are just a coincidence. /s
Here is how this is settled. One has a channel aimed at educating the audience so that they can make up their own mind and maybe dig deeper into the matter on their own by explaining how historians work and formulate arguments, and the other has a channel aimed at the glorification of his own “brilliance”. Just go through their content and make up your mind. Hint: one of them has a video where he claims he has found an explanation for origins of life on earth… as his first video.
Go figure!
Put a link to that please.
Liar
@@cantsay8894 Just go to his Prehistory Decoded Channel, go to his videos and scroll all the way to the bottom.
I would be careful calling people liars when you don't even bother to check. 🙄
You obviously have no idea how science works! Have you had all your Covid vaccines.......did you think about all the scientific work undertaken in preparing these vaccines? Scientific research involving numerous different specialties. Dr Sweatman uses mathematics, physics, chemistry, history and hours of research to come to his conclusions. Open up your world....read his book...don't be so judgemental. Many scientists are brilliant, that's how they reach their positions in the academic field.
@@joycesweatman965 And some are complete quacks, especially if their talking about a field they don't know anything about.
@@georgethompson1460 And you know this because........??
"You can't even do basic maths, biased against science, philosophically bankrupt, don't understand the scientific method at all, are anti science, etc .. but that's not a personal attack, just giving the facts." Blocked.. haha
It's funny to me that he appeals to his scientific and statistical training as the reason why you should trust his arguments, when his application of statistical reasoning is full of all the typical fallacies that a layman would make. I would be surprised if he wasn't aware of the fallacies of his reasoning, so my best guess is that his intention is to deceive.
Several years ago I got into an argument with Sweatman about his ideas about this very thing. He invented new zodiac signs to fit what he thought the signs on the pillar meant. He insulted me and would not consider anything I said as relevant because I'm an artist. He is jumping on the bandwagon of "advanced ancient knowledge" because it's a gold mine, and he'd say anything for money. If I still had our exchange I'd tell you exactly what was said, but I don't think I saved it.
I wasnt sure if I'd like your channel, your criticisms, or your delivery of the subject matter... but I absolutely RESPECT what lengths you go through to bring transparency to the field, which is what a lot of fringe theorists claim to do. You debunk the debunkers! Which, as a fan of alternative history, is exactly what is going to make the field of thought even BETTER. Now, it may not be as fun as the ancient astronaut hypothesis.. but it is still very exciting to be on the cutting edge of discovery, which requires rigorous debate to elaborate and illustrate. Humanity is beautiful and brilliant regardless of facts, but even more so because of the facts.
Often the athiest in academia are very bad at symbolism and its agendas and narratives against religious.
Is Dr.Sweatman being disrespectful by referring to you as David instead of Dr.Miano? You've been calling him doctor, why the difference?
Different culture......nothing more.
I'm still trying to wrap my head around connecting the dots when it comes to the scientific study of the configuration of molecules and atoms (or whatever the specific wording) to speaking authoritatively about the analysis of 10k year old artistic motifs and symbolic interpretations of celestial bodies.
Thats what i thought too.
LOL, I was thinking the same thing! Over my head 🤷♂️
I just found your channel last week and i've been bingewatching all your videos, i specially like this myths of ancient history series, keep up the good work.
Awesome, thank you!
Sweatman was likely not expecting his work to receive any legitimate critical analysis. His writing ( and video content ) is aimed at the non scientist who's possibly already on board with guys like Graham Hancock. Alt history theorists are usually not specialists in the fields that would be directly relevant to the study of ancient history, if they are scientists at all. It's not likely that his actual colleagues ( other physicists ) would have much interest in his hypotheses about ancient lost civilizations.
It's funny that he would take so much time denying that he is arguing for a more advanced than assumed culture when his whole thesis relies on these people having a system of astrology and an understanding of the procession of the equinoxes. These are not things generally assumed of pre pottery Neolithic peoples.
Dr. Sweatman shouldn't consider it an Ad hominem attack that someone points out his actual area of expertise. He, in fact, tries to save face by claiming his understanding of atoms and molecules relates to his ideas about GT.
Dr. Miano usually doesn't get direct responses to his reaction videos when he's critiquing the likes of Brien Foerster, Graham Hancock, Uncharted X, and others, possibly because they are too busy getting rich off people who aren't inclined to consider anything that doesn't confirm their bias anyway, and don't want to get in a dialogue wherein they are likely to be presented with questions and observations they may not want to answer or acknowledge.
I’m not an archeologist and I have been interested in some elements of the lost tech story and so I am grateful for clear teaching like yours. On the subject of Sweatman though I would say that his BIGGEST sin is pride.
Academics research for the truth to add to our knowledge of the world. That's the whole point of academic papers, nothing to do with pride!
Look at Dr Sweatman's supporters' comments on his Twitter page. He has also just been on TV....Hidden Histories.
Being that Sweatman is so interested in Greek astronomy, I would say hubris rather than pride.
HIs biggest sin is being an arrogant english cockhead wanker. I know the type. Hancockhead is another perfect specimen.
I'm learning important things from this channel. The problem with science people (including myself as an electric engineer), is that our work is to find patterns, and produce hipotheses, and somehow we take them as true, except proven wrong.
So ... thank you for bringing us back to earth.
Heyyy fellow EE! So much of what we do aims to make up patterns and manipulate things to do our bidding. From plain circuits to signal processes we manipulate things. This guy really thought he can apply that to research 😂 at least he’s not one of us lol
This guy sounds like he was counting on the fact that everybody would assume he knows what he's talking about because of his smart sounding British accent.
If I had £1 for every time he says strawman I could afford to go part time.
Careful Sweatman is a Hancock disciple. Which means, “the people that built these monuments were too stupid (and brown)”.
Does it? I thought Hancock believes in lost advanced civilizations?
@@cathyd74 a lot of those ancient lost high technology culture proponents argue that some similarities megalithic structures and pyramids within the americas and the old world prove that there must have contact thousands of years ago, rather than evolving independently. They argue that these megalithic structures are far too advanced for cultures such as the inca to have built them, and that they must actually far older, dating from before a great cataclysm, despite having zero evidence for such claims. Many argue that this lost culture was related to the ancient phoenicians or lost city of atlantis, including graham hancock in multiple books. This denies the very real achievements of these pre-columbian native american civilizations, for which there is overwhelming evidence for, so is consequently often interpreted as being racist. I don’t personally think that’s hancock’s intention, but I do think the effect of spreading that kind psuedoscientic disinformation is nonetheless disrespectful towards these indigenous cultures.
Hang on....Dr Sweatman is his own man! And you're twisting what he said. Nowhere did he make this comment. Stop making it up!!
I (dis)agree.
Cleopatra was obviously white and Jesus if he did exist was a sort of nordic italian with no beard.
And God might have invented the universe but I am surprised he couldn't come up with the shaver.
Well at least his son did
This actually is slanderous. Neither of those guys said anything like that. You see what kind of conversation you're producing @worldofantiquity?
This is solid gold both for education and entertainment!
Are you aware that Dr Miano misquotes Dr Sweatman in several places? For instance Dr Miano says that Dr Sweatman believes in an "ancient high civilization". This is not true and nowhere in his book can I find this reference. Is this good education?
@@joycesweatman965 Hi Joyce! All the best to your family. Many of us here are probably open to alternative theories in history. It would truly be fascinating if Dr. Sweatman’s argument were true. There may be a few slight inaccuracies in Prof. Miano’s response, however what is abundantly clear are the logical flaws in Sweatman’s argument. I hope he takes the criticism in stride, rectifies the errors and finds a way to present his evidence with those adjustments.
I'm rather puzzled by your comments. Are you suggesting Dr Sweatman should rewrite his book??? Or his academic published papers. If you disagree with his hypothesis, the normal way would be for you to write an academic paper and get it published in an academic journal.
And exactly what errors are you referring to?
Paused @10:29
I can't be alone in wondering how analysis of configurations of atoms and molecules helps an understanding of the symbols carved on the stones.
That is one heck of a quantum leap to make that connection
I think it "helps" because that is his background, lol. He thinks that because he is a chemical engineer no one else can disagree with him because they are not chemical engineers, even though this is not a chemical engineering problem.
You are not alone! LOL, I'm still confused about that assertion.
If making the evidence fit the conclusion requires jumbling together seemingly unrelated piles of pieces, then closing one eye, squinting with the other, tilting your head in bizarre ways, and staring at the evidence from very far away, guess what? The evidence *probably* doesn't fit. This is the level of the mental gymnastics that Dr. Sweatman is performing.
I take it you haven't researched the G.T. site in Turkey or visited it or the other ancient Tepes in the area. Dr Sweatman has visited these and posted videos of his visits, plus carried out years of research. There is a dedicated Museum in Sanliurfa which obviously displays many artifacts from local sites, and again Dr Sweatman had toured this museum to gather personal information. Does this sound like mental gymnastics? To me it illustrates the normal way to carry out research!
@@joycesweatman965 I am not doubting that the good Dr. Sweatman has visited the site, nor am I claiming he does not have experience in his field. I am questioning the grounds of his hypothesis (why does he believe this comet impact occurred, why does he believe that the people of this location kept record of it, etc?), and his methodology and how that affects the credibility of the evidence as support for the hypothesis (he is correlating several distinct and substantially distant sites to compile his completed zodiac, the criteria of his comparison of the G.T. carvings to other animals are highly weighted to produce favorable results to his hypothesis, and even the G.T. site's depictions are notably erroneous (if these people had sufficiently developed astronomy to have understood the movements of the stars and the precessional cycle, then why is this alleged record of the event (to which this hypothesis ascribes a notable cultural significance) so full of errors in the positions of the constellations? Wouldn't a people who held this event to be so important as to record like this have wanted to ensure the irrefutable accuracy of the depicted date?)
If you or Dr. Sweatman would be so kind as to help enlighten me and provide answers to these questions, in good faith and with as much clarity as possible, through personal correspondence, I would be willing to reevaluate my conclusion if I find the new data such a correspondence might yield to be sufficient as to warrant a revision of my conclusion. I consider myself open-minded, but I also find the principles and rigor of critical thinking, the scientific method, and various other analytical tools (Occam's razor, etc.) to be invaluable in trying to comprehend and interpret the data I am given. Surely as a person of science, Dr. Sweatman can appreciate that myself, a humble layperson, appreciates and applies those principles.
@@Ferretic Thank you for your well considered questions. Firstly, I too am a lay person who happened to get caught up in this discussion because I read Dr Sweatman's book, have read his blog, watched his videos and Dr Miano's counter videos. I believe in fair play and feel that at least Dr Sweatman deserves that. I would suggest the following to find answers to your questions.
1. Read Dr Sweatman's book...Prehistory Decoded ( available from Amazon)
2. Watch his videos on TH-cam.
3. He has a Twitter page where you can ask him questions direct.
4. He also has a blog which you could follow.
5. He is an Associate Professor at the University of Edinburgh in Scotland. You can obtain his email from their website should you feel it necessary to contact him.
I am not in direct contact with him, but agree with his challenge to Dr Miano, to write his own paper on the subject and get it published in a peer reviewed paper. I notice other people have also challenged Dr Miano to do this as this is the correct channel to open up discussion.
I would just add....these very ancient people who built G.T., or rather their ancestors, lived through the Younger Dryas Impact times ( now proven a theory I believe) and would have witnessed comet and asteroid strikes and would have been extremely fearful for their lives. So probably constantly watched the heavens ( what else could they do?) Have you read about the YDI theory? That might answer some of your questions too.
I hope this helps.
Thank you once again for your brilliant work, David. I really appreciate your efforts in this series.
Hopefully it is a guidance for those who want to believe in ancient high technology. Regarding the channel owners and those spreading misinformation I highly doubt it. As long as people can generate profit from spreading misinformation they will stick to their ideas. You said it yourself, most of those being criticized don't even bother to face their critics to come to a conclusion. That tells a lot about their ideology, which isn't getting to the truth, but insisting on their own point of view.
Although this is kind of disappointing there is something positive about it, because there is the opportunity for your audience to be enlightened by you for quite a while. :)
Have a great day! All of the best to you and your family.
This video is honestly hard to watch. It is literally an hour of Martin wrongly accusing David of some fallacy, and then preceding to commit the exact fallacy himself. I admire David for his composure in the face of such insulting hypocrisy.
Admirable tact, thorough response. This was a great video, and I think you did a pretty good job explaining/clarifying your position. I think his response actually did the opposite.
Old Philosophy Student here. I know too many people with engineering degrees who have one thing in common; the inability to admit when they are wrong despite the proofs and evidence staring them in the face. And they have EGO to spare. At the very least Dr. Sweatman could use a refresher in Symbolic Logic.
Keep up the great work!
Engineer here! You’re not wrong and it is a problem. People think because they extensively apply science in their work, they’re interchangeable with scientist. It’s a shame really. This guy however takes it way too far with the audacity to claim superior expertise to actual experts, then talking in such a petty way. He wouldn’t even make it in a high school debate team, but expects a seat at the table with professionals. I promise you, had this been a topic in engineering, discussed in a professional conference or circle, he would’ve been far more humble and respectful. Ignorant people are always the loudest.
6:29 "my research uses some *basic* mathematics so he is not best placed to review it. it's not a personal dig, simply the facts."
that has to be the smoothest way i have ever heard of calling someone dumb. I'm gonna steal it, that's was beautiful.
I love how gracious you're being while pointing out the facts 💙
very good debate video! sadly, i never had debate club or rhetorics class or anything of the kind at school, so I'm enjoying the examples!
what's depressing is that platforms like youtube prioritize sensational content over factual. judging by the comments here, quite a lot of people come searing for genuine knowledge and end up swiped by pseudoscientific discourse before they can even get to that, and it takes a persistent and motivated kind of person to follow the trail of evidence and logic and arrive at the more reasonable approach. as such, Dr Miano's channel is very valuable, by engaging the sensational views on their own turf and thus giving access to general public to make a judgement call of their own.
Maybe it speaks to the problems of the distribution of knowledge in our world overall... if you want some kind of truth, go buy a book, but how to pick the right book, and how to justify it to yourself? meanwhile, youtube and suchlike is just out there, it's a pastime not investment, you feel like you are learning something, but who's to say it's viable knowledge, especially when it's the algorithm pushing forth the sensationalist stuff and burying the more measured and reasonable content.
HistoryTube beef was not something I ever thought I’d run across on the platform lol I love it
Professor Miano: I wish to thank you for this and other videos. I discovered you by accident - a fortuitous accident, I must haste to confirm. I am a former investment banker and an avid student of history. At the insistence of a friend, I watched a few of the Ancient Astronauts videos…!!! I could not believe Erich von Däniken’s crazy ideas had found so many disciples. I was so disgusted with Ancient Astronaut that I looked around for possible rebuttals. THAT is what led me to your videos. In a perverse way, I owe von Däniken a bit of a debt of gratitude.
Your videos are a true pleasure to watch. Your clear-minded, organized, lucid and thorough approach is impressive. And your style, your eloquent command of English and profound knowledge of history are uncommon. Please continue your work.
Dr. Sweatman would well advised to take many classes from you.
Thanks, Joseph. I am glad you found the channel. Welcome!
If you want really ancient history......read Dr Sweatman's book....Prehistory Decoded.
@@joycesweatman965 Unfortunately, my brief exposure to Dr. Sweatman in the video to which I referred above has left me with no desire to experience Dr. Sweatman.
@@joycesweatman965 you have shares in that book?
It's nice that you take the high road and don't come across as condescending or rude, even when it's arguably justified
Like, too many people claim they want to set the record straight on things, but do so in a way that makes people double down on whatever nonsense in question
@@ogedeh He's more of a gentleman than I would be... I couldn't resist to be more harsh and sarcastic towards Sweatman.
Your comment proves that what you're saying is not true. There is no such thing as taking the high road when questioning someone else's work or theories. Just because you mindlessly agree with him because you're mainstream doesn't mean he was taking the high road. The high road would be to not get involved at all. All this dude is doing is taking the same initial findings and regurgitating them, the findings which all basically stem from 18th and 19th century European explorers. He's not reinventing the wheel or anything. This is this guys thing I see, I came because I seen a video of his I liked but when I got here and seen so many," he's wrong videos" I was depressed. Make a name for yourself don't use other peoples names too...
You must be high, the second comment was pointless
@@chuckdeuces911 why hello there
Well done sir!! I think you covered all the bases concisely. You saved me a lot of time because Dr. Sweatman asked me to respond and back up my criticism of his statistical method (in which he cherry picks data in order for a favorable outcome, not acceptable in statistical analysis) in one of your last videos. I replied by stating that it wasn't my place to respond first since this was your video and argument to begin with and that I may after you reply. Well, I don't see the need, you did a fantastic job.
While David sometimes can sound patronizing or sarcastic towards alternative history followers, Dr. Martin Sweatman's response is almost nothing but personal.
The fact that you remain generally respectful and give these people the benefit of the doubt while you are criticizing them is very commendable. I think it says a lot that in most cases they don't do the same
Yes.......David Miano calls his video....Lies and Statistics....insinuating that Dr Sweatman lies....that's very respectful.....isn't it!!!
@@joycesweatman965 I don't see how calling a spade a spade is disrespectful
@@lordofleaves257 Have you read Dr Sweatman's book? Perhaps you should, then you will see that
It's not a spade!! Don't knock it until you have read it.
@@joycesweatman965 unfortunately through watching how he handled himself in assessing David's video, I've seen a lot of telltale signs of a person who is avoiding direct questioning and throwing in ad hominem in order to make his opponent seem less credible. I have no interest to further delve into his studies, but if you have a criticism of this video or think what he does is more valid than is portrayed I'm more than willing to hear it
@@lordofleaves257 Although you say you are not interested.....you really should read Dr Sweatman's book. That's where all these issues started, and then you will get to the truth. Good bye.
I once fell victim to the conspiracy theory of ancient high technology. Read two of Graham Hancocks books, was a devout follower of Randall Carlson, TH-cam pages like unchartedX, and even perused Dr. Sweatman‘s page on multiple occasions. I began to grow sceptical of the view when I realized the alternative history view seems to have mountains of “evidence”, and the only reasoning behind why it isn’t accepted is an academic conspiracy.
Dr.Miano, I thank you for providing an opposition to these views and educating the us on a public forum. I think we need more engaging academics like yourself that use current knowledge of ancient cultures to formulate opinions, rather than this “it looks like it, so it is” method. I look forward to seeing the growth in this channel as well. Almost a million views! Nice!
Thanks, Adam!
@@WorldofAntiquity Dr. Miano, I've been thinking something along the lines of what Adam has said and it reminds me of the movie Unbreakable where the plot revolves around every hero has a villain. If it weren't for the popularity of folks like RC, BF, JH, Uncharted, and others Dr. Miano and other ancient historical historians wouldn't have as much interest in their work. As annoying as these popular influencers may be to archeologists and historians are they in fact doing the historical society a favor by sparking interest in field and leading the sheep to the historical shepherds like Dr. Miano? If the search for truth starts with exaggeration and misguidance but folks like Dr. Miano can guide the seekers to a more reliable and accurate path in the end are there not more people aware of ancient history than ever before. Should Dr. Miano and other historians enjoy the limelight while it lasts? Lets face it, the subscriber base for Dr. Miano is likely far higher as a result of the work of these salesmen than otherwise, the funding from ad revenue will help Dr. Miano and others who are willing to embark on the influencer pipeline to counter them and that revenue may more than offset the effort it takes to counter them. This might be a sort of win-win situation where the hero (Dr. Miano) has to keep putting out the fires that the villains start and in so doing raises the common man to a heightened understanding of our past. Perhaps we should wish for their continued co-existence to fuel the masses to ascendance in support of ancient historical analysis. Were not Sitchin and von Daniken also responsible for sparking interest in ancient history in their day? Sometimes it takes a bit of sensationalism to move the animal spirits in support of understanding our past. However, do these modern myths do more damage than good in the sense that it becomes harder to convince these myth "believers" of the archeological and historical truths? Its hard to get funding to research the past relative to medical and technology research perhaps a little myth making leading to ad revenue to support historical studies isn't so bad. Just have to be careful the golden goose of truth isn't killed in the process. Before 2016, a Cub's fan collogue of mine was convinced that if he told enough people the Cubs had won a world series that it would eventually become fact... we have to be careful of what we wish for when seeking attention.
@@sidneyleejohnson Time will tell.
Keep on doing what your doing David, it is nice to see experts in debate like this, it opens the doors to the truth a little more each time. Of course we could all be wrong!
As a social historian what bugs me about Sweatman's argument is that his assumptions and statistical analysis seem almost devoid of cultural context. The pillars weren't made for us, for the same reasons we might make them. His arguments doesn't seem to take into consideration cultural change or cultural diffusion (and the reinterpretation that comes with such). I didn't see any convincing evidence for interpreting those symbols as being astronomical representations of anything. If he can provide other evidence in the site or sites contemporary with GT, then I'd find his hypothesis more convincing.
I also found his explanation of his statistical analysis unconvincing for proving or supporting his argument. It's an interesting numbers game but it doesn't prove those symbols mean what he wants them to mean.
As a social historian with a science background (astrophysics), I also find his definition of hypothesis and scientific method a bit problematic.
As an academic you know what you should do. Write a rebuttal, which is then peer reviewed and published in an academic journal. Dr Sweatman has challenged Dr Miano, and in fact anyone to do this. To date no one has! Until that happens, Dr Sweatman's hypothesis is sound.
Maybe you could check out;
Carl Munck. The Code.
He sticks to the math.
@@joycesweatman965
His hypothesis isn’t necessarily sound just because nobody has yet challenged it in his preferred arena.
@@FirstnameLastname-bn4gv That is the academic way of progressing.
@@joycesweatman965
If your goal is to receive academic recognition, sure.
If your goal is to debunk an idea openly in a public forum, then videos like this are a perfectly legitimate means of doing so.
This is tedious, but I'm glad you took the time to rebut his rebuttal to your re-re-re... (I lost track of who said what first). I think having a voice of reason in the chaos of speculation is important. Anyone who can edit a video with decent narration seems to be an expert in the eyes of the YT audience, but that doesn't make them one.
I do appreciate how you utterly refuse to drop down to his level of disrespecting him and his work after every point. He seems to take every remark of yours as slanderous and defamatory, but that is a very juvenile approach to debate, and one used a lot by the YT crowd.
You obviously are familiar with the YD debate so I suggest you read an article published yesterday in the Science Progress Journal....Premature Rejection in Science...The case of the Younger Dryas Impact Hypothesis. Dr Sweatman and other leading scientists are cited here and their Hypothesis is now classed as a theory.
Just found this channel and I'm very pleased. It's great. Really pitched it right between popular and scholarly.
I have to say it is extremely tough for me not to be biased towards your views, Dr Miano, with the great amount of respect I have for you. Respect which ironically comes from how patient and unbiased you seem to be towards topics and arguments which most people, I feel, would either ignore or laugh at. I really admire that, and as someone who aspires to become a scientist myself, in the admittedly distant future, this is the kind of impartial mindset I wish to have. Thank you for your work!
Funny nose whistle at 33:10
David, you are doing a great job. I once was tending to believe all sorts of these noncense ancient alt history theories, you teached me a valuable lesson and i want to encourage you to continue!
David, I am a big fan of your videos. My only criticism of this video is that the audio level is not consistent. Otherwise, good work!
So what's your take on the G-T iconography? It kind of looks like ancient dodo birds playing soccer or volleyball to me, but of course I lack credentials in the field. I did see Dr. Sweatman's paper some time ago - it struck me as fanciful at first glance. Thanks for taking your time to do this.
to correctly interpret those symbols is not easy at all, we need a lot more data for that to make sure.
It's funny how most of the fringe thinkers are actually scholars, who should know and accept the scientific method to promote their theories in anyy field of study... But they don't! They embrace sophism and conspiracy theories... And become sensitive when questioned! If you can dish..... Thank you for your witty myth questionning, keep it up! 👍🌞
You get eccentrics and wingnuts in every field. Just because someone has higher academic training does NOT mean they are logical or are putting their education to good use. It is very much a case of you can take a horse to the trough but you can't make it drink. You are always going to get a subset who are just out there in terms of their ideas and way of thinking.
I have a criticism.
I've been enjoying your channel! I'm fascinated by the narratives presented by what some may call "alternative" or "fringe" theories about human development. A lot of those can get pretty outlandish, as I'm sure you know, so your channel has been very helpful in keeping my own ideas grounded. I appreciate that.
I have to nitpick though! About five minutes in, you say that you don't attack people. I remember thinking, though, that you seemed to go pretty hard on Randall Carlson in your video about his ideas a month ago. So I watched it again to make sure I didn't just have a bias for Carlson, and I wanted to present these pieces to you.
You compare Carlson to a "kid who doesn't have his homework" which seems very belittling. Needless for the argument.
You allege Carlson "turns a blind eye to evidence because it's inconvenient to him."
And say that making up "...scientific sounding terms will fool nobody but the most gullible of people..." which seems to infer Carlson has the malicious intent to deceive, and that people that listen to him are simple minded enough to be persuaded by his vocabulary. Very demeaning. And the terms he used were "non-linear" and "discontinuity of evidence." Which seem to be perfectly plausible ways to try and describe his idea, whether it's a good idea or not.
If you're going to claim the moral high ground of not resorting to ad hominem, I've got to hold you to this standard. Any clarification is welcome.
I will concede that your arguments for the preservation of evidence of our own civilization for thousands of years were sound though. So I'm not dismissing the critique of Carlson's ideas, only what seemed to be attacks on his character.
I hope you see this. Thank you for your time.
The remark about the kid who doesn't have his homework has nothing to do with Carlson's level of maturity. It's a simile. The simile is useful, because it shows that Carlson's excuse for there not being ancient remains to establish the existence of a lost civilization is equally as unconvincing as a kid saying the dog ate his homework.
I don't know what about saying that someone is ignoring evidence is a personal attack. If I see that someone is ignoring evidence, and I say so, how is that personal? Besides, I said "it seems" he did that. You left those words out.
He said himself he invented the term "nonlinearities." It's not a term that science has accepted for what he described. And the way he said it rubbed me the wrong way, because it sounded like he was trying to pass himself off as a scientist, which he is not. But you are right that I implied he did this on purpose. I certainly don't think he had a malicious intent to deceive, and I think you are exaggerating greatly when you say I meant to indicate that.
@@WorldofAntiquity I understand now that you only used the simile to show how believable the claim was. Reassessing that, it is indeed an attack on the idea that I mistook for an attack on Carlson himself. Thank you for clarifying that.
Just as you indicated I forgot to include the word "seems" in a quote from your video, I said it "seems to infer" that Carlson had malicious intent. If you implied he tried to pass himself off as a scientist on purpose, that would be deceptive on his part, and I was highlighting the negative connotations of that inference. I'll admit that malicious may have been too strong a word to use.
That still leaves the additional idea that people that listen to him are swayed by vocabulary. I maintain that was demeaning, but in all fairness to you they weren't the subject of the video.
Lastly, saying someone is ignoring evidence BECAUSE it's inconvenient to them does indicate a lack of integrity. But if I tried to continue that argument in earnest with you, I'd just be playing word games.
I appreciate the quick response. Thank you for addressing those remarks. I see that I made some mistakes in my original comment, and I could have been more careful with my quotations.
It's good to know that a person without a degree can't gain the knowledge to understand the same as someone with a degree. What would we do if people could actually learn the same knowledge that "scientists" learn. No title, no street cred. Ignorant audodidacts should stay in their lane.
@@WorldofAntiquity You're being far too polite. Karlsson has to deceive people in order that they keep paying him. Therefore intent is a necessary condition of his grift. He also states that the total lack of any evidence for the globespanning ancient civilisation is 100% proof that it existed. Which is nice since you could never prove him wrong. In his logic anyway.
Awesome stuff. Everything was made clear and understandable. Any mistakes made was taken out of context and assumed malicious. I confess the debate is getting so technical at times it gets confusing but by the end it was clear and from the start that is what I thought about with all the "lines" part of the constilations. By the end I was like "ok yeah that is what I was thinking" and all my thought were confirmed by your explaining it "his test was flawed from the start" and I get that. Martin...doesn't unfortunately
it just kind of makes me sad that someone has dedicated so many hours of their life to such absolute nonsense
Edit
(dr sweatman that is, I love professor mianos videos he is doing gods work🙏🙏
Do you mean Dr Sweatman? Just because you say it's nonsense......doesn't mean it is. Explain your reasons please.
@@joycesweatman965 I’m a little perplexed why your asking me to explain why I called dr sweatmans work “nonsense”, when we’re in the comments section of an hour and a half video meticulously ripping apart his theories. Just watch the video? Basically everything dr miano says is airtight. The modern zodiac obviously did not originate at gobleki Tepe, it makes me depressed that someone clearly intelligent and passionate about our past has spent so much of his time on such a useless theory.
@@Skyoats I have watched the video plus previous videos on the same topic. I've also read Dr Sweatman's book...Prehistory Decoded. What you may not realise is that Dr Miano misquotes Dr Sweatman....and then proceeds to answer the misquotes.
Interpretations of images made by a people of which very little is known is nothing more than speculation. I've read his book and there is no real basis of facts to hold up his theory. There are many possible interpretation about what is there at Göbekli Tepe.....and yes, living in Turkey I have been there and looking at his book and looking at his Zodiac theory, there is nothing there other than a non objective opinion. He simply thought, oh, that looks like a Zodiac, so it must be a Zodiac.
Well someone clearly took philosophy 101 and remembered at least one lesson.
You composed yourself excellently where many would be irate in the face of slander, which he of course accuses you of doing yourself. You've earned a fan. Thanks for fighting the good fight.
I really think you should follow this debate from the beginning. I believe I have my dates correct, but Dr Sweatman published his book in mid 2019, and followed it with a video on TH-cam which Dr Miano rubbished without any real proof or research of his own into the site at G. T. In Turkey. Dr Sweatman has visited this site. Dr Sweatman then carried out his rebuttal of Dr Miano's comments in another video. Dr Miano responded and gave his video the title...Lies, statistics and G.T. So you could claim that Dr Miano was the one starting this dispute!!! Have you read Dr Sweatman's book....Prehistory Decoded?
@@joycesweatman965 I've followed from the first video through to this one. I'm truly impressed by how David has comported himself. Cheers
@@chungusdisciple9917 So you haven't read the book Prehistory Decoded? You really need to start at the beginning of this discussion.
@@joycesweatman965I have, it wasn't my cup of tea. I have trouble believing your impartiality in this discussion, Mrs. Sweatman. And having read your other conversations here, I don't think I will find anything of value from this discussion. Be well.
I'm quite surprised he (a professional) would even put out a video like this. From the very beginning his own words make him look bad. I don't know if he is employed as a professional or if he is totally employed by his own books and events? I would guess his fan-boys love this kind of thing, but if he works with any professionals they are at best rolling their eyes and probably don't want to have anything to do with him.
Dr Sweatman answers that himself at about 7:10 . He says he intended for his videos to be a gateway to his book(s).
I will give Dr Sweatman some credit for actually making a video reply , and replying with his own account in the comment section of the former debunking video , instead of going undercover and troll this channel. More then can be said for a couple other alternative researches/claimers which have been "debunked" and chickened out.
Not that i think it actually helps him sell more books though. Rather the opposite , and if it gets too well known, it may actually do more harm to alternative crowd , since a few will learn about this channel for the first time and check it out.
@@heisag You hit the nail on the head about the book.
So many of these alt history cranks are just about selling something.
Foerster has tours and books, UnchartedX has various merchandise always on offer through his videos, Christoper Dunn has books and lectures - and all of them wax lyrical about the so called 'expert' Egyptian guide Yusef who was apparently such a talented stone mason that he decided to spend lots of time guding tours instead of being a stone mason.
One of the latest entries called Jahannah James seems to have latched onto them in hopes of kickstarting her acting career from the association - it's all a big shell game with one mentioning the other for maximum coverage and reinforcement of their schlock through sheer numbers.
Oh, could you maybe try to secure an interview with Prof Schaefer? Not to waste his time with this nonsense but so we can gain a better understanding of his advances in the field. Hearing from a real academic on a topic we've covered would be a fine antidote to the vapid hubris of Dr Sweatman.
"Vapid hubris," eh! Darn it I wish I'd used that instead of narcissistic slanderer! Good choice!
A good idea!
@@WorldofAntiquity I hope that if I had pursued my career in History, instead of changing career paths, that I would be as level headed and non-confrontational as you seem to be. Early on, I was sometimes called a Grammar Nazi, or Mind Controller, because I insisted that my students learn the correct version of the language.
I was clear that the students could speak and write informally, but that in order to be considered educated and not be passed over for jobs they needed to be able to use their language in the highest register not just the lowest.
Unfortunately, I've met several imperious and stuck up Englishmen like Sweatman. They seemed to have two quarrels with me, my Irish name and my tendency to speak debased American English instead of the Proper English. Fortunately, I've met enough Brits to know that this is a vanishing breed. Perhaps Sweatman could be conservated in a museum, or a circus, to perform for normal people.
I couldn't have kept my cool the way you did. Congratulations and best wishes.
@@JMM33RanMA Thanks, Jay.
@@WorldofAntiquity No luck securing the interview with the expert? A pity, he would have brought a lot to the table.
His seeming lack of theory regarding the scientific method and the social sciences really disqualified him, he really seems to think that hypotheses are truly neutral, not a reflection of the world as well as yourself
For all his talk of the scientific method... He really seems to take umbrage with the whole peer review part.
Great video Dr. Miano.
As a published scientist and statistician by halfway through the video I've seen enough. This person critiquing you doesn't know the first thing about the scientific method nor statistics. There are plenty of professors who got their role through their narcissism and the mates system. From what I've seen of this guy I suspect that he's one of them. I'm not going to bother watching the rest of it because this man is a waste of time.
I suspect that he got the original article published by shopping around with submission until he got a lucky draw with a set of reviewers who don't know statistics or think that they know them. I'm a qualitative guy who has been called on to peer review quantitative stuff and undoubtedly let some things slip by. A person. Can get away with quite a bit if they can polish a turd with stats and then submit to the right journal.
The classic misunderstanding of a statistical test; he thinks just because his p-value is significant it means it proves his hypothesis, rather than just refuting the null-hypothesis. Most scientists have committed this mistake. It also, funnily enough, is related to a semantic point that significant in English used to mean meaningful instead of important and now whenever someone finds that the p-value is significant they just go ahead and publish their results thinking their result is "significant". No it's only significant in latter sense if your p-value is more significant than it would be for other test hypotheses.
You quote.....most scientists have committed this mistske. And you know this for sure because.........??
@@joycesweatman965 Because he's seen a lot of papers that make that mistake?
"Assuming I'm correct, this proves I'm correct."
As someone who's worked in government along political officials.
I'm glad for: what you do, your tone of voice, and willingness to engage criticism so openly; thank you.
The way Dr. Sweatman presents his rebuttal reminds me of managers who are in charge of technical experts but they do now know the expertise themselves. They are arguing above their knowledge, which is why he repeats himself a lot, without any evidence or citations to back up his claims and hypothesis.
Dr Martin Sweatman "You can see he didn't read our stuff"
5 mins later "he specifically asked us about these lines in our work"
So what is it did he or he not read your work?
You really need to read Dr Sweatman's book ... Prehistory Decoded......to get the full picture here.
@@joycesweatman965 ummm sus comment, and sus name.
I have the book.
So are you saying that Miano didn't read the original work? To make this video and the first like it is, it is kind of required. Dr sweatman says he didn't read it then he contradicts himself saying Miano asked about specific things in the book and papers. Sounds like the full picture is here.
@@randallcraft4071 The book....I assume.
@@joycesweatman965 what?
@@randallcraft4071 What are you asking? Have you read the book?
What struck me immediately when Martin Sweatman explained his theory was that there is no way the people who built Göbekli Tepe have already named the constellation which we call Scorpio today also called it Scorpio back then! From that point onwards I didn't listen to his theory any longer.
I hope that these exchanges will reach the few in that "camp" who may still have the ability to reason and question, well, everything, someday breaking out of the dopamine trap that these and other charlatans use to fleece the flock. I was one of their victims and it's a sad, angry, paranoid trap. I'll stick with EVIDENCE from now on and thank you for providing so much.
And their compulsion to create the "straw man" when challenged is a dead giveaway to their corruption. Classic Narcissism. Listen, if you can stomach it, to a creationist define Natural Selection or Carbon 14 dating. It's very entertaining but NOT informative just like the works of these people. I can't wait to hear Hancock's spin on this dig! But, money talks, and P.T. Barnum summed it up perfectly.
Well said
Thanks for all the hard work you are doing for debunking pseudoscience
If you read Dr Sweatman's work on the University of Edinburgh website, and read his book, you will realise that he is no pseudoscientist. He has a reputation to uphold and would not jeopardise it.
@@joycesweatman965 well some scientists are not worthy the name scientist, here is one.
Thanks for your efforts in debunking this type of stuff I know it must seem like a thankless task from time to time but I appreciate it
great video David, two questions that occurred to me, if they used symbols would they also provide an index or translation, and why even use symbols at all? just carve out the system as it appears at a given scale. anywho thank you for your work!
Symbols often don't need explanation by the cultures that use them. If I drew a cross, even if you yourself were not a Christian, you would likely understand the meaning of that symbol just because of its prevalence in our culture. Ditto for a million other things, like company logos and such. Everyone in our timeframe knows what the golden arches of McDonald's represent, so future archaeologists are not likely to ever find any sort of lexicon that explains that icon.
I have only recently started to look at educating myself to at least good conversational level about the process of going from hunters to farmers. Opened a whole can of curiosity. My desire to know more was from listening to new age type friends. I thought their views sounded suss. At first all I could find on TH-cam confirmed their views. Still sounded suss. Then I found you and Stephan Milo. Sense was made. Thanks man.👍
Glad you found us, Martha!
It's bizarre to me that he would make these accusations knowing the initial video is still up? I wish he would have just discussed the issues you brought up with his proposal instead of attacking your character. You need to have tough skin in peer review. With any forum. Especially the internet
I think he's probably counting on his fans to just take his word as is, because he can't understand why someone would question his words.
This is a very fair approach to judge the hypothesis of an academic outsider, thank you for this (I am such an outsider, too). In the end, his foto with Graham Hancock is no coincidence and he deserves the dismantling of his entire idea. If you ever had criticism of my views, I would carefully listen, you can bet on it.
David thank you for this. I am just an avid enthusiast of ancient history. However, I can spot arrogant academic people a mile away. Many commenters made the same conclusions. Virtually all his comments tried to discredit you.
This felt like spock debating Mccoy. Logic vs emotion. Well done and educational. Thank you.
Thank you.
I'd be interested in a deeper dive on gradualism and catastrophism. I'd guess those are not absolutely contradictory in themselves? And if gradualism would be let's say the norm, catastrophy can still happen now and then and, not totally set back former progress, but nonetheless have an effect on technology and knowledge at a given time and a given place. Which wouldn't seem a wild assumption to me, though I might be totally wrong about that of course.
Also, and I guess that's an entirely different matter, on a more social anthropology level, isn't the idea of linear progress considered somewhat problematic, and leading to historicism?
As a kid i loved MTV's Celebrity Deathmatch, and could never find entertainment in the same kind of genre, until I found out Archeologists bare knuckle fights with TH-cam vids.
Wow. This wasn't a contest. He refused to participate. You really should write that research paper. But you're right. Although facts and valid lines if inquiry are established in scientific papers, misinformation is sent out through social media and web sites like that of Sweatman. Trying to use modern constellation lines with no relationship to the carvings at Gobeckli Tepi to analyze those carvings and characterize them is ridiculous on the face of it, burying the fatal defect in statistical analysis and cherry picking can't save it. The method is rooted in anti-science and anti-history fantasy.
A statistical analysis of the number of keys on a piano against a cherry picked list of 88 constellations yields a 1:1 correlation between the numbers, but reveals no meaningful relationship between constellations and piano keys. To then reject a criticism of the statement "The number of keys on a piano was determined by the number of constellations in the night sky." You cannot then say "My statistical analysis proved it." The analysis was entirely irrelevant, just like any hypothetical relationship between pianos and the constellations.
Great job. It was not persuasive to the denialists and those who believe that the contents of their imagination command the universe to obey. The absolute best you can hope to achieve is to educate those interested who have no preconceived opinion, and who can be persuaded by fact and valid reasoning.
Thanks to David Murphy for the incredible analogy of tossing a dart out of the window of a plane at altitude, drawing a circle around the dart on the ground and then using statistics to calculate the odds of the dart hitting that precise spot. It obviously wouldn't be true to claim that the tosser of that dart had incredible accuracy based on that statistical analysis.
Are you sure you're on Sweatman's side? You sure are giving me incredible opportunities to be so clear in my reasoning that you have no chance of persuading anybody, regardless of standing, he has a dead rat's chance in a trap of being right about much of anything. Thanks for the help. You made me clarify my reasoning and present it in a much better form. You might not want to give up the day job. You're not very good at this.
It must be so tiresome to respond to alternate history "Experts". Great work sir. Really needed this.
I'm sure Dr Sweatman's research is seeking the truth....not any alternate version of prehistory. As so little is actually known about ancient mankind, don't you feel its good that people spend time researching this subject like Dr Swestman has done? May I suggest you look at the University of Edinburgh's website and read his published papers including the G.T. ones.
@@joycesweatman965 no thanks
@@slaer So you are not really interested in the truth?
@@joycesweatman965 I am.
@@slaerummm....not sure you do....you want your own truth!