I'm actually interested in the thoughts of this forum on the titled topic.

Maybe an interesting video to start things off:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc2psN0PFTk

Would you believe me if I say that the Bosnian pyramids are not real?
They are well known and mundane geologic formations visible throughout the world, the formations exhibit no trace of human construction, and the claims made by Semir Osmanagić are wildly inaccurate and obviously fraudulent.

Milo glances over the issue in his video, but his claims are backed up by real investigations into the issue.

I think you are onto something @slingbadger.

I feel like a large part of the identity of pseudoscience is the insistence of there being a conspiracy. The conspiracy itself is like a major part of the proof, or justification.

For instance, in its day to day work archaeology does not concern itself with claims that are proven inaccurate, so things like ancient aliens, Atlantis, or the Bosnian pyramids (ancient giants, etc.) are just not relevant for the work that has to be done, while the proponents of pseudoarchaeological claims seem to be obsessed over the scientific mainstream constantly hiding something. The conspiracy plays a major element in their claims and research.

The sort of argument I am trying to point to is that if a scientific field can support its claims, that field should be self sufficient, and internally consistent (allowing for things not yet discovered, and existing inaccuracies, of course). The claims and proof should stand on their own, and the work should follow directly from that, without any need for justification from conspiracies. Conspiracies should not be beneficial to the result. If a large part of your effort is focused towards insisting on conspiracies, then I suspect your entire field is a pseudoscience.

So when I see a post or a Youtube short about a topic, and I see conspiracies as a major element of the proof, I instinctively regard the video as pseudoscience and apply heavy doubt to the claims. Like a sort of red flag.

Yfir wrote on Jul 8^th, 2025 at 7:15pm:

True statement.  The problem comes in when people get a little too quick to make a judgement or conclusion.  Sometimes it's not only about looking at the evidence, but also having a thorough understanding of how and why things were done.  And if a conclusion that's exciting or unbelievable is reached, which was ultimately based on a misunderstanding of something, it doesn't matter.  People will still love it, and it will spread all over the Internet, social media, etc.

Some theories might get the 'pseudoarchaeology' label too quickly.  But it's up to the person making the claim to demonstrate that it's true (or possible, probable, etc.).  Not for someone else to disprove it.  And if a person thinks incorrect conclusions are being made based on the available evidence, they can say so.  Although hopefully that comes with an explanation as well.

Here's one I just saw recently.  Good 'ol Joe Rogan.  I like his podcast, but that dude defintely loves a good conspiracy.  Helicopter Hieroglyphs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmylzTDCpss.  It sure looks like one to me.  But once it's explained what's going on, it's like 'Oh yeah, that make more sense'.

joe_meadmaker wrote on Jul 8^th, 2025 at 11:17pm:


I absolutely love the video. I'm saving it. It's the perfect example of one of these wild theories, and how quickly they fall apart under scrutiny.

A video found its way into my YouTube feed today, where a fairly gently-spoken man looked at a shrine or box (a Naos, though he didn't say so) found on Elephantine, an island in the Nile in upper Egypt. Elephantine is home to a few temples, though he more specifically looked at the naoses outside the now ruined temple of Khnum - likely dating back to ~1400-1500BC. not sure though.

Things take a turn however, as he argues that the sheer flat faces of the naos, the perfectly curved astragal, the immaculate inset room and perfect holes for doorposts, are indicative of ancient machining. The comments were, understandably, torn, though most were in favour of ancient machining/lathes/routers, and the likes.

They're beautiful works of granite, doubtless, but to claim they were machined? That's a bit ignorant, if I may say so.

I scrolled through the comments, and the only arguments I've found for the lack of apparent mechanical mills, routers, and lathes, boils down to the idea that the machinery would corrode and decay too quickly for there to be any surviving artifacts. Some comments even made fun of the notion that people made them and instead proposed the idea of extraterrestrial beings making them. As if we're too animalistic, too primitive, and too ignorant to make such a thing.

Some even asked the question: if it was done by hand, wouldn't there be failed versions of such works? But simultaneously, the video has half of a broken naos in the background that the videographer even acknowledges, with the marked outline of a millstone on it, as if some ancient stoneworker was going to turn the failed attempt into a millstone. I don't get it.

This isn't to make fun of anyone who may believe in such a thing as ancient machining - but I have to ask the question: do people actually believe in this? I don't understand.

If one ancient culture had access to machining akin to or greater than modern day machining, why wouldn't surrounding cultures take a hint and mimic the technology? Why wouldn't that culture perpetuate such technology and maintain it? For example, if the ancient Egyptians had machining technology granted by aliens, could not maintain it, could not replicate it, wouldn't they write about it? Maybe even immortalize it in the royal script of Hieroglyphs? Wouldn't it last until Cambyses II, who could write about it? Or the Ptolemaic Dynasty, where Greek writers could have done likewise? Or the Romans? The list of questions raised and lack of apparent evidence keeps building and building.

Again, if someone reading this, either a guest or a member, believes in this, that's cool. I just can't.