Imagine if the GEICO Caveman and Giorgio Tskoukalos (the guy with the strange haircut from the Ancient Alien(ation)s TV shows that supposed that cave drawings mean contact with aliens and how the self-appoined “mainstream” debases him with crap about fringe theories, or some bullshit like that, because he has albeit SOME evidence, abstract that cave paintings look like aliens, but aren’t TO HIM ANYWAY! It all goes back to that whole interpretation thing, about you see this, I see that in this drawing that looks like an alien to me. I for one, AM NOT a supporter of Ancient Astronaut theories, BUT THEY do HAVE SOME basis in abstract, sort of circumstantial evidence and how the mainstream is afraid of people challenging them, and Wikipedia invents absurd labels like “pseudohistory” to defame and destroy heretical interpretations of history to destroy their critics and overly-emotional labeling to destroy them. Imagine if on a news conference show, staged by GEICO, the GEICO caveman gets pissed that Mr. Tsoukalos gets on Ancient Aliens and says that our ancient cavemen saw Aliens. Of course, naturally GEICO caveman gets upset writes to the news about Tsoukalos’ words about aliens being on a cave painting from his time period. A heated discussion flares up and words are said.
HERE IS A FAKE TRANSCRIPT OF THE NEWS BETWEEN TSOUKALOS AND THE GEICO CAVEMAN
NEWS ANCHOR: “WILL O’HURLEY” (FOX NEWS anchor parody of that plucky little Irishman, who furthers the tough Irishman stereotype.) OR any NEW ANCHOR SAYS:
(DRAMATIC MUSIC PLAYING)
These rare cave paintings give a rare prespective into life lived by cavemen some 30,000 years ago. Some show animals in big enormous poses with adrenaline-fueled hunters chasing after big alien-like creatures. Giorgio Tsoukalos, a man whose theories about aliens have sparked great controversy within the academic community about his theories about possible alien contact with primitve man.”
TSOUKALOS: The paintings on this wall look like a modern extraterrestrial spacecraft. See, how the eyes of this creature look? Our ancient ancestors were not stupid!
NEWS ANCHOR: Others are not convinced.
GEICO CAVEMAN: I KNOW WHAT I SAW! I was there when I was chasing that antelope that looks like a big furry deer. So what if I can’t draw worth a crap? I suck at drawing things on a wall and I just write them on the wall to pass off the time. I am bored with hunting the same old creatures day after day.
JOINING WITH ME HERE IN THE STUDIO:
Giorgio Tsoukalos: Author of many books about ancient astronaut theory about supposed contact with aliens.
The GEICO caveman you recognize from the GEICO commercials and is the star of many of them. Who is not so pleased with Mr. Tsoukalos’ telling him that he saw aliens.
CAVEMAN: Yes, I saw “alien creatures” that were in fact, nothing more than the food I was chasing last night or a strange creature from over the hill that I have never seen before. I bet you saw Elvis last night, too!
TSOUKALOS: Yes, but from what I have seen based on my DNA research of the creature is that it is NOT a creature from this earth. My whole research into the subjects has nothing whatsoever to do with Elvis and
“CAVEMAN” I examined the DNA in the lab the other day and studied prove that you are indeed wrong, Mr. TSOUKALOS:
TSOUKALOS: Yes, but they do not see beyond the DNA that the DNA is FROM ANOTHER CREATURE THAT WAS born here on earth from another mother creature of one born on this planet. Data would point otherwise to your claim. Where did the creature come from if THIS ONE HAD DNA FROM A CREATURE HERE ON EARTH, but IF YOU TRACE IT BACK FURTHER, WHERE THE ORIGINAL DNA GOING BACK TO ITS ANCESTORS CAME FROM? IT came from extraterrestrials.
CAVEMAN: I think you’re full of crap because that creature in fact is one that I have seen every day for the last 30 years of my life time, that my grandfather saw when he hunted it, and I do not see any relation to any aliens. The creature I saw did not come from any spacecraft that you speak of, Giorgio. You are so full of crap, it hurts!
WHAT ABOUT THE strange creatures on the painting on the wall? Their DNA has been traced to some highly-evolved creature that has extraterrestrial DNA! It could not have just floated from space to earth. It had to come from somewhere!
:CAVEMAN: I THINK YOU NEED YOUR DNA examined! Better yet, you need to quit projecting yourself onto others AND YOU need to quit making stuff about ME SEEING ALIENS FROM a long time ago! I did not see any aliens! You are full of crap! Sure, I may have been out drinking one night and came back and talked about a creature that came from the sky when I was hungover that night after being out with the buddies after drinking a couple of beers and seeing a whatever receptacle thing you call it nowadays, flying at me. You have NO IDEA what I have seen, 30 years ago, do you? I did not see any aliens, although I knew a guy who claimed he saw them. I think you have no idea how modern science works.
TSOUKALOS: YES, but you are not a certified expert in the field who has had experts study it further and come up with a
CAVEMAN: I do not need to be an expert to know that THOSE CREATURES ARE FROM EARTH AND ARE THE EVERY DAY CREATURES THAT I HAVE ENCOUNTERED SINCE I WAS VERY SMALL! YOU ARE JUST MAKING INFLATED THEORIES about the stuff that I drew on the wall when I was drunk and groggy from another hangover and you are supposed to believe that they were aliens. What next? Elvis was an extr
TSOUKALOS: You seem to bring up that Elvis thing way too much. Everything is around Elvis, isn’t it. This has nothing to do with Elvis.
CAVEMAN: NO, it doesn’t. That is ridiculous! It is as ridiculous as your claims about what I saw to be aliens. I saw no aliens! The creatures are NO
“TSOUKALOS”: THEN HOW COME they look like modern photos of ET aliens?
“CAVEMAN: They just happen to be another human obscured by some fog that I drew the other night.
TSOUKALOS: Are they now? I have examined this creature fully and I have done an archaeological dig of the area and found out that its DNA was traced back much further than before you and I were brought on this plane
CAVEMAN: You arguments do not hold up under close scrutiny, Mr. Tsoukalos!
TSOUKALOS: THE CLOSE SCRUTINY THING IS JUST AN ATTEMPT TO SILENCE THE TRUTH ABOUT OUR CONTACTS WITH ANCIENT EXTERRESTRIAL ALIENS YOU MADE! You are in denial about what you have seen with your own eyes right in front of you. You have no idea what you have seen! You have seen a creature with big eyes and a round alien head like an ET!
CAVEMAN: That guy you are referring to is my neighbor who is an ALIEN from over yonder across the hill who I’ve never seen before because I live in a world outside my own field of vision that I rarely see, because I am limited by contact, that you humans have put me down as a know-nothing ignorant creature, who is limited in worldview, WHEN IN FACT WE CAVEMEN have evolved faster that your little airy-head has gone or truly imagined in your soft imaginless head! You have a wild and active imagination like that of a first grader! I am tired of being accused of being ignorant, of seeing aliens, and this Tsoukalos guy is starting to really anger me!
There you have it folks, an argument between Giorgio Tsoukalos and the GEICO Caveman!
CAVEMAN: Oh that, that’s just some poorly-drawn bird that I was trying to understand the day before. I obviously cannot seem to draw that bird. You have no idea what you’ve seen.
Tsoukalos: Good night everyone for this wonderful debate!
MY DISCLAIMER ABOUT THE LOADED AND REPULSIVE AND AMATEURISH TERM “PSEUDOHISTORY” BELOW IN PARENTHESES! I GOTTA QUIT FOCUSING SO MUCH ON THAT STUPID TOPIC THAT I HAVE LAMBASTED ABOUT WIKIPEDIA FOR FAR TOO LONG! I just keep writing about it, in case some Wiki fascist tries to muzzle or silence it or Munoz does.
I am too obsessed with this absurd and comical label that is comical and absurd beyond all sort of meaning AND ACTUALLY stifles intellectual debate aND FORCES IT TO BELIEVE IN ONE NARRATIVE, EVEN THOUGH HISTORY IS INTEPRETED THROUGH MANY DIFFERENT LENSES! The fighter pilot sees World War II different than a guy on the ground, or a soldier in IRAQ saw an IED explode and did not record IT, and then the “pseudohistory” crowd cries that there is NO EVIDENCE, when in fact this “sensational claim” iS TRUE because the blast left chards of metal, debris, nails, blood all over, etc. AND THERE IS EVIDENCE, there and documentary and ONE PERSON claiming TO HAVE NOT SEEN IT BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT EVEN THERE TO BEGIN with, and the Bosnia and Srebrenica controversies have the same problems. There are CONTROVERSIES SUCH AS THESE AND WIKIPEDIA SHOULD NOT BE USING THE TERM “PSEUDOHISTORY” TO LABEL AND DESTROY THEM WITH THIS NONSENCIAL HATED AND LOADED AND COMICAL TERM TO TRY AND DESTROY THEM AS BEING QUACKS AND UFO nutter types, WHEN IN FACT THEY SAW SOMETHNIG and TRYING to force their views onto other people and believing that they are always right and all that, when in fact they are not and they shallowly label things this way based on narrow prejudices. I do not focus on it, all the time and do not like being ridiculed with it, BUT I DO IT FOR THE SAKE OF A JOKE, to make fur
The Civil War events are well documented for everyone to see and there is NO ARGUMENT THERE, lest ye live in the South or whatever, BUT OR THE ALAMO AND THE MAINSTREAM AMERICAN VERSION AND THE MAINSTREAM BEING THE OPINION BASED ON FACTS, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE MEXICAN INTERPRETATION? or making up claims about people teleporting to the moon in 1836 or some absurd claim like that, THAT COULD IN FACT be a joke! Sometimes, I wonder with claims like that THAT SOMEONE ISN’T TRYING TO MAKE A JOKE TO RIDICULE SOMEONE THAT THEY DO NOT LIKE AND PUT IN WORDS THAT THEY NEVER EVEN SAID, to twist them like a pretzel or destroy them.
Those aliens and false fraudulent claimsters I do not care about at all. Most people except that they are full of crap and do not bother to LOOK FURTHER, if CERTAIN evidence HAS PROVEN that THROUGHLY without BUT AGAIN, a bone of contention because someone saw something different from someone else. Again, a differing view and Wikipedia be
Some events are mainstream without questions like World War I. It would be a false claim to say that it was started by aliens, but what about someone trying to make a joke? BUT IT WOULD BE A HOAX AND PSEUDOHISTORY if he used fake evidence to back it up, or fake Photoshopped pics and passed it off as real, BUT IS THE INTENT to joke with somoeone or a misleading hoax?
Again, a bone of contention! Enough of me picking apart Wikipedia about this! I have had enough of this aliens nonsense that HAS NO EVIDENCE to prove it, short of abstract interpretations of it based on what they’ve seen about the subject. Or other false claims about history, designed to scam and fool people into giving money with convincing scams and hoaxes, like LOCH NESS! NOW THAT’S PSEUDOHISTORY RIGHT THERE!
But, again that bone of contention, relating to some subjects that have evidence, or it’s been destroyed by the war, or someone tampered with it. Academia is not a ridicule circus National Enquirer fest that WIKIPEDIA HAS MADE IT OUT TO BE WITH THESE SILLY CONCEPTS!
Again, the term “pseudohistory” IS WHAT YOU MAKE IT TO BE!
WHY THE HELL DO I care about it? I just make fun of all the absurd stuff out there on here. I just am not a crank or a flake, but just pick apart contentious subjects on Wikipedia that are fully of loaded terms and highly contentious, such as these.
Who cares about Wikipedia or PSEUDOHISTORY OR THIS RIDICULOUS COLLOQUIAL TERM that is rarely used anyway or this comical, absurd, bullshit term, hateful, ignorant, derivisve, pejorative, loaded, and humorous, and laughable and comically absurd, TERM THAT SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING FROM MONTY PYTHON!
Wikipedia is EXACTLY THIS TERM! It does not write history, the experts do! But even the experts don’t agree on everything! Hence, why use the term? Let’s use the term for known frauds and hoaxes, BUT BE CAREFUL ABOUT USING OR ABUSING IT TO THE POINT OF ABSURDITY like WIKI OR RATIONALWIKI has done to silence and ridicule those that they do not agree with THAT HAVE OTHER OPINIONS ON A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF A CONTROVERSIAL HISTORICAL EVENT, based on evidence, like Falklands or Bosnia, OR show side IS SEEN DIFFERENTLY THROUGH EVIDENCE to the contrary NOT SEEN BEFORE ON THE SUBJECT, who saw something else happening or THAT LITTLE CONTENTIOUS GRAY AREA that the black and white Wikipedia has problems with.
I just like to derisively make fun of Wikipedia. I am not pseudohistory or anything like that. I should not obsess on the term so much, but rather derisively MAKE FUN OF THINGS THAT ARE NOT the real history, THE REAL HISTORY IS WHAT IS TRUE ON EVIDENCE, OR IN SOME CASES REAL AND wrapped up with carefully-worded terms to avoid being killed by the secret police in Russia or somewhere like that, or is a true memory, faded by age that is HARD TO REMEMBER from all those years ago, like World War II accounts by veterans in JAPANESE POW CAMPS, who have strong evidence of Japanese atrocities, but have their own paintings of the subject, and tortured MEMORIES THAT HAVE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THESE ATROCITIES and ARE PROVEN TO HAVE HAPPENED BECAUSE THESE PEOPLE ARE CREDIBLE MILITARY EYEWITNESSES AND USUALLY IN THESE CASES MILITARY PEOPLE DO NOT JUST MAKE STUFF UP OUT OF THIN AIR AND REPORT THE SMALLEST DETAILS DOWN TO THE LETTER IN OFFICIAL REPORTS TO BE AS TRUTHFUL AND HONEST AS POSSIBLE SO THAT MISTAKES ARE NOT MAKE AND THE STRAIGHT HARDCORE TRUTH IS MADE! They could WRONGLY use said term to ridicule the military. in this way.
There is a term for stuff designed TO MISLEAD THE PUBLIC IT IS CALLED A “HOAX” or bad history, but let’s leave the comical and Monty-Pythonish term of “PSEUDOHISTORY” OUT OF IT! OR DOES MICHAEL SHERMER WATCH TOO MUCH MONTY PYTHON? It sounds too much like a British comedy sketch about “MAINSTREAM BELIEFS AND HAVING IT PUT DOWN AS “PSEUDOHISTORY” OR WHATEVER!
There is NO SUCH SUBJECT AND I DO NOT LOVE OR REVEL IN IT! I DO NOT LOVE THE TERM, I HATEIT AND I HATE IT EVEN PEOPLE WHEN PEOPLE AFFIX ME OR OTHERS WITH IT! IT IS STUPID AND IGNORANT! I do not care about the internet and shallow, judgemental, people out, ignorant as hell.
To hell with my obsession with this term! To hell with Wikipedia! To hell with it! Wikipedia is just the internet rumors packaged as an “encyclopedia” for wayward internet farers, THAT IS JUST A MOCKERY OF SMART AND INTELLIGENT PEOPLE ACROSS THE WORLD!
Wikipedia is about as reliable as an iceberg is to Titanic! To hell with it! Titanic was well-built and the force of the impact and mass against the ship tore into it. You could not Raise the Titanic. The movie is so insulting and shallow to the families of THOSE WHO LOST RELATIVES ON THERE AND IGNORANT OF THE PEOPLE ENTOMBED IN THERE THAT IT WOULD BE LIKE DESECRATING A GRAVE BY DOING THIS! The film is promoting grave robbery of an entire ship! It is a stupid film.
More self-absorbed off-topic remarks! Sorry!
No one can even find a definition for it.
THE ARTICLE IS ANTI-INTELLECTUAL AND ANTI-REVISIONIST! I have said too much about this bullshit.
I just like to pick people apart like th
It does NOT SORT between plausible evidence-based claims and totally false claims, like rumors, ETC OR THAT HAVE BEEN LABELED FALSE, but ARE IN FACT SOMEONE SEEING FROM ANOTHER ANGLE, wrapped up in carefully-worded hidden meanings!
(Someone is gonna view an historical event different from another person does or one side does or another. So what’s all this BS about a singular, one size fits all interpretation of mainstream history? that SOME DO NOT have a basis in fact like Bosnian pyramids, or other fake fraudulent archaeological sites or artifacts, or about Allah being a pagan moon god or whatever. Treating differing opinions with contempt and creating loaded statements about “sensational claims” “no evidence” (despite the fact that evidence have been destroyed OR there IS EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT, and it is a different way of looking at it BASED ON EVIDENCE to the contrary, i.e. someone’s opinion about the Civil War or Bosnia for example.) or whatever. (Pseudohistory term is a bunch of baloney that pseudo-experts at Wikipedia come up with to make themselves sound smart) or loaded statements about Armenian Genocide or genocides or massacred or ethnic cleansings, THAT WIKIPEDIA TREATS AS IF IT IS A GAME OF CONSENSUS, AN ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS MEETING about admitting to it, AND LIKE An ARGUMENT TO BRUISE and abuse people with these labels, about controversial events like Bosnia, Armenian Genocide, Native American Indians and other such related controversies, EXCEPT the Holocaust which IS A PROVEN FACT! YOU’D HAVE TO BE A PRETTY STUPID IDIOT TO DENY IT, but EVEN THE DENIERS admit that there are gas chambers, in the opening of their absurd statements and if you catch them, on it they’ll admit. They’re “denying” it in the sense of refusing to admit that it happened, but it did! The misleading statements about Palestinians “erasing” the Holocaust from history in their textbooks. They’re not “denying” they are fully admitting it and twisting it around into such absurd proportions to make fun of Israel over it, because the whole bread and butter of their existence is THE HOLOCAUST after escaping Hitler’s vicious and cruel campaigns of mass murder and racial purity over half of Europe. PEOPLE CAN HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS and no self-appointed pseudo-intellectual jackasses who think that the world revolves around labels and labeling things to death, AND GIVING LABELS THAT ARE LOADED STATEMENTS, to “destroy” people and force them to chance their opinions and being such assholes about it ARE STILL GONNA BELIEVE it, even if it’s a differing account of a historical subject, like Civil War, or the Indian Massacres/Genocides (AND THAT furious debate about that, and WE FORCE THE SERBS TO ADMIT TO THAT, while having OUR OWN PROBLEMS in such subject areas with Indians. IMAGINE if Britain intervened to help America fight the Indians to prevent genocide, (BUT IN REALITY NEEDED THE INDIANS to fight America) and took away part of the southwest to Mexico and made it “independent” WOULDN’T YOU BE MAD, TOO!
I am NOT gonna get into that whole Bosnia, Kosovo, shit! Because it is such a sorted and nasty little mess! THIS MY DISCLAIMER ON THE SUBJECT. Why treat genocide like Alcholocis Anonymous? Why trivialize it? Why turn into a consensus game? Genocide is such an ugly topic, especially the whole controversy of labeling events in Bosnia and Kosovo with THAT label and forcing it onto Serbs. That whole controversy! All sides fucked up! The Serbs were the worst, but were they the lesser of 3 evils? The whole Islamist Ultranationalist slant of the Izetbegovic crowd was and IS IGNORED AS “GENOCIDE DENIAL” even though IT IS UNDENIABLE WHO HE TRULY WAS AND THAT HIS FORCES DID IN FACT DO STUFF WRONG TO SERBS, NASER ORIC RING A BELL? They deny their atrocities and the vicious labeling like kindergartners who did what to whom and blames the other for their atrocities, while the Bosniaks deny theirs to Serbs and Serbs deny theirs, or controversies about some atrocities being staged, or whatever, or faked or whatever, or just wild rumors about some of them in the chaos of war. That whole mess that Marko Attila Hoare, Julia Gorin, and Nebojsa Malic bash each other with every day. I AM NOT in the field of genocide/massacre or whatever denial it is. My point is THAT PEOPLE ARE GONNA BELIEVE WHAT THEY WANT TO BELIEVE END OF STORY! They treat Bosnian Genocide term like a colloquial term or something, a NAME GIVEN TO IT! Who gave that name and why and why the whole flap over this labeling it genocide or whatever?)