Best Of

From National Geographic and Plimsoll Productions comes the thrilling documentary special THE DEVIL’S CLIMB. Follow renowned rock climbers Alex Honnold and Tommy Caldwell on a 2,600-mile expedition to tackle one of the most daunting challenges of their careers: summiting the infamous Devils Thumb. The Devils Thumb is a sinister tower of ice-plastered granite deep in the wilderness of southeast Alaska and is known as one of the most dangerous mountains in North America. For Alex Honnold, this climb is among the greatest adventures of his life, a testament to his relentless drive to achieve the impossible. For his best friend, Tommy Caldwell, it’s a chance to make a heroic comeback after a career-threatening Achilles injury. The friends undertake an epic journey to the Devils Thumb, traveling by bicycle, sailboat and on foot through the American West, Canada and Alaska. Witness the extraordinary courage and pulse-pounding climbing as the two attempt to accomplish the first-ever, single-day traverse of all five peaks of the Devils Thumb massif – and push their bodies and bond to the absolute limit.

This sort of life is in me. Whenever I watch these climbing docs the feelings I had climbing things in a much smaller way when I was young rises in me. I feel the adrenaline in a good way. I feel like in an alternate timeline this could have been a life path for me, though not at such an elite level.

I'm a fairly regular listener to Michael Shermer, the founder and editor of Skeptic magazine. Quite a few years ago he appeared with Graham Hancock on Joe Rogan. I haven't watched or listened to his appearance but he talks about it from time to time. My take away from his comments is that Graham is by and large a conspiracist and a fabulist. To take one quote, "Do you know what you call alternative archaeology with evidence? Archaeology."

You can scroll down past the comments on the JRE appearance to get to his fleshed out 6 points in refutation of Hancock.

1. There isn’t just one “alternative” to mainstream archaeology, there are hundreds of alternative theories.
2. Cherry picking data, confirmation bias, and starting with a conclusion and working backward through the evidence to make it fit.
3. Patternicity: the tendency to find meaningful patterns in both meaningful and meaningless noise.
4. Alternative archaeologists disparage mainstream archaeologists and accuse them of being closed-minded dogmatists in a conspiracy to silence the truth.
5. Falsifiability, conjectures and refutations, and the burden of proof.
6. The dangers of reading the past from the present.
   https://www.skeptic.com/reading_room/debating-science-lost-civilizations-shermer-experience-on-joe-rogan-961/

@lobster said:
Watch the documentary and find any proof a normal person needs.

For those who want to see the docu, it appears to be up on YouTube at the moment…

@Lionduck said:
It is amazing that, when I stop trying to make sense of the world, it makes so much more sense.

When you stop using the mind, your own nature comes through more strongly.

I don’t need or want your blessing. That’s not what this exchange is about.
We can part ways here.

signs are helpful guide. u-turn sign and a bumper sticker gave me a meal;god allow u-turn. we can change our sercumstances. change our life for the better is wonderful,imo.

You got lucky….By being more cautious than they were.

Cautious means being careful and avoiding risk or danger or problems. It can also mean being prudent and watchful, or exercising forethought.

Lucky means meeting with unforeseen success. Favorable chance.

I guess some kids have it and some don’t, huh?

I’m reading exactly what you’re writing. In fact, trying to get it down to minimum wordage to try to get you to understand how it’s landing. The words you’re choosing are your responsibility, not mine.

“Free love lead to unforeseen consequences “…and “ too friendly” annd “not impeccable “ are interesting choices for unethical, unfair and some horrific acts. Cmon now. Your use of soft and flowery language is for a reason. Think about it.

As opposed to those who “allowed” them to approach?. You really don’t see anything wrong with what you’re saying? You’re victim blaming.

“Victim blaming can be defined as someone saying, implying, or treating a person who has experienced harmful or abusive behaviour (such as a survivor of sexual violence) like it was a result of something they did or said, instead of placing the responsibility where it belongs: on the person who harmed them

These responses often stem from a belief that there are specific things people can do to avoid being harmed, a comforting belief that increases the bias holder’s feeling of safety….”

https://www.sace.ca/learn/victim-blaming/#:~:text=Victim blaming can be defined,the person who harmed them.