119
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 19 May 2026
119 points (100.0% liked)
Mildly Interesting
26674 readers
289 users here now
This is for strictly mildly interesting material. If it's too interesting, it doesn't belong. If it's not interesting, it doesn't belong.
This is obviously an objective criteria, so the mods are always right. Or maybe mildly right? Ahh.. what do we know?
Just post some stuff and don't spam.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
And aside from pulling it out of your arse, where did you get the "discredited" part from?
For all the downvoters: genius above only linked the article after I called them out. Take my comment as if there was no link.
I linked to the archaelogy.org article that discredited it with the relevent quote.
Ah, the link you've added AFTER my comment. Because nothing screams more fairness in a debate than going back and modifying your argument.
Also, the very article you quote does the polar opposite of what you claim. It does not discredit but actually support my "armchair archaeologist" theory (which wasn't even a theory, just an example of how things COULD be misappropriated due to archaeological evidence generally being scarce):
Arguably I've only gotten haflway through the article as it's 2:30am here, but that very statement seems to suggest that said "discrediting" didn't really happen.
I added the link within a minute of posting and long before you replied. You must be on another instance to not have seen the change before you replied.
BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER. YOU MADE THE ASSERTION THAT SCIENTISTS ARE WRONG. IT IS YOUR JOB TO DEFEND YOUR ASSERTION, NOT MINE.
You are like Ben Carson declaring that, "Pyramids were built to be granerys, prove me wrong."
No, because there would be evidence of something military related or military adjacent. They said there was nothing.
Honestly just block the guy and move on. He’s being an intentionally obtuse idiot so he’s probably a troll.