>>40768183Reminds me of one that I watched on the Discovery Channel years ago
>Crystal skulls episode or something that was carved however long ago>"Yes these are old and look like they've been made with modern machinery, but we know they were made X long ago with basic hand tools. The truth is it really isn't that hard to do">How can you prove it isn't hard to do and be so accurate with basic hand tools?>"We're going to get this woman to carve the same thing right in front of you, she's an art student and has done this kind of thing before">Okay cool I guess that would go a long way to proving it>"Oh, she's also going to use modern power tools to save time lol">But the whole argument relies on using basic hand tools the way they did?>Ignore this part and just get on with the art student and her power tools>Does the sloppiest fucking job you've ever seen>Puts the original and the mess side by side as a comparison to show you can't tell them apart>Can easily tell them apart and see all of the power tool marks on the shit one>Even the art student who did it looks embarrassedThis was years ago. I don't think I've watched the Discovery Channel since.
There used to be some fat skeptic on too who was allegedly a bona fide scientist. All he was there for was to debunk anything /x/ and every single time without fail he never debunked anything. All he ever did was start calling the people making the claims insane.