Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Even if what they claim is not completely right It seems even this is not the case and that the show is just completely wrong.
The show seemed very convincing, not in the speculative theories about an ancient precursor civilization necessarily, but definitely in some of the findings they show Do you have any resources you could share that debunk the specific things they show? Like the rock paintings they dated to 10k years ago, or some of the other digs that were dated as 20-25k years old? Are you saying it is all made up? Or just some of it…
On a tangent, isn't that a signal of inaccuracy? Accurate people - i.e., committed to be truthful and correct - are very careful and nuanced about what they claim, make weaknesses as clear as strengths, and are careful to not be too convincing, because that can distort their reader's critical thinking.
At least, that's the ideal. But why be especially convincing - why be more convincing than your empirical evidence?