Has modern medicine benefited from the experiments conducted by units 731 or one done during the holocaust?

When I think of a secretary, I think of someone in a supportive administrative function. Making appointments, booking travel on behalf of another person. So why was Stalin's title General Secretary, when he clearly wasn't anyone's secretary. In-fact he was the opposite of a secretary since he was making all the rules? And why did this trend change that by 1991, Gorbachev was called the President of the USSR and not the General Secretary?

While I find the series fascinating, I would be shocked to know that passionate archaeologists would choose to neglect potentially knowledge-shattering sites and artifacts to align with an accepted timeline of humanity. It simply goes against the nature of the profession, in my opinion.

How likely do you think it is that any part of this series is factual? And do you have any explanations behind the supposedly neglected ancient sites as featured in the documentary?

I just finished watching the Ancient Apocalypse show on Netflix. I looked back at recent posts and didn't see too much about it, but sorry if it's rehashing it again.

My perspective is from the outside on this one. I have a general interest in the field, but am not actually IN the field. I read interesting things that cross my path and go down the rabbit hole here and there when I have the time. I was attempting to do the same regarding the sites presented in the show. The issue that I seem to be running in to is no where that I look seems to be a rational breakdown of his claims. It's likely that he's been around long enough that it's already been done, and at this point he's worn out his welcome and the field is simply just tired of talking about him - and probably deservedly so.

When watching the show, I could easily pick out when he was more devout/spirit leader about things, with his incessant rambling about the cabal of archaeologists keeping him down! I was able to look past that simple at the (I'm going to call them facts, but they should likely have quotes - I just don't why to have to type quotes that many times) facts that were presented that seemed to raise legitimate questions. Everything I have read so far basically just calls the guy a quack and doesn't actually look in to it. From an outside perspective, this seems like there could be bias on both sides (and I understand why it's likely warranted towards him) that at least at this point in time is blocking what to an outsider is meaningful debate.

I would be THRILLED if someone where to be able to even give a brief synopsis of each site and where he went wrong, or even just a link to an article that goes over it. Hopefully without what seems like instant disregard for the thought. I almost would hope for someone to give his thoughts a fresh look - eliminating them when something factual opposes them (I do understand that this isn't how true science works, but for a layman this is potentially more digestible to more people).

Things that stand out to me that seem interesting without an answer revolve a lot around the common themes between locales that are no where close to one another. From my understanding of the current record, it's assumed that the Americas were populated between the second to last Ice Age and the most recent Ice age. This changes from what I was taught in school regarding the Clovis people that put Americas as post 12k years ago. What is the leading thought for why structures tend to have alignments that, at most, beg some questions. Is it just pure luck that humans in general tended to have nothing better to do and came to the same mythological conclusions regarding stars/sun/moon? Is it something where that might be a hold over that was passed down from a singular population? Both seem very unlikely - but so does his theory. To a point anyway. It's not necessarily impossible for me to see a more advanced civilization doing so, especially when the myths tend to be uncannily similar (this can't just be me right? the fact that myths from different cultures share very similar characteristics is odd and unexplained...right?). The part that tends to bunk that from the start is the lack of infrastructure from that kind of people. My thought there then leads to me saying to myself, "Right but what if they simply had different cultural norms? We as humans now tend to be walking trash cans, but the Native Americans revered nature and were stewards. Is it impossible to think that a society who was influenced by the natural world revered it enough to actually clean up after themselves? Or is that just naivety?".

Long story short, I apologize if this is a (unbeknownst to me) proverbial horse that is beyond life support, but the show was interesting enough that I'm now down this rabbit hole. Any and all conversation about the subject is beyond welcome, although I'd more than love if we kept the disdain for Hancock out - I'm more interested in actual factual information, not hate for a guy I care little about.

So, it is known that the first Duke of Normandy was unable to ride horses because he was massive. But which was the first source that stated it? Was it Dudon of Saint-Quentin?

Thanks!

"Mary was a virgin" is a common Christian idea today reinforced by quorum in translation of biblical texts, but as I understand it the original story and early Greek translations all describe Mary with a word meaning more like "very young", and that Jesus had siblings by Mary & Joseph - that his was a virgin birth, but not his brothers.

At what point did the proliferation of virgins & virgin holidays in Latin America take root, and was it a deliberate revision?

Question in title.

Why is Romulus Augustus considered the "Last Western Emperor" and Julius Nepos? From what I understand Nepos even considered Emperor by Emperor Zeno (Eastern Emperor). Not to mention Romulus Augustus was a child and abdicated while Nepos ruled until his death.

How many different shops would you typically visit to get everything you needed for the week? How much choice was available for any given product? How strongly was availability influenced by the seasons? What would a grocery list from the 1920s look like?

The title is very broad, I know. My main concern is where did it start. I've seen all kinds of movies, books, games, TV shows, and other media depicting the tin/brass/other star of a sheriff, marshall, or other lawman. But it seems an odd choice of symbol for the law.

So, where did it begin? Is it unique to the US? Is there a reason for it, does it symbolize something, or was it just a convenient shape that could easily be replicated?

I really expected to find this question already asked and answered in this sub, so I did do a search before asking, several actually. But I wasn't able to find one. So, I am sorry if I somehow missed that it's already been answered.

An example of previous action would be the violent supression of the Prague Spring of 1968 under Brezhnev

Partially school related but also I'm genuinely curious. I entered into coursework on this subject because I was promised an academic debate on where responsibility lay; however, having read many historians I can't find a single one who argues his innocence. The only people that seem to do this are fantacists or just ignorant of the period or the facts. Im asking to see if I've overlooked anything.

Was There Ancient Horse That Ran Differently?

I have an unclear memory of something I learned at school once. I'm almost certain we learned of a horse breed, which I believe is now extinct, that didn't run in the same way other horses do.

The details are hazy but I believe it was something like, both left legs would go forward while both right would go back?

I also think I recall that they were bred and used by some sort of early army because of the way they ran it gave some benefit I believe? Stamina for long marches maybe? Not sure. It could of been the early Romans.

I've tried googling, searching through articles and info pages but have found nothing. I could just have this crazy memory that didn't happen 😂 Either way I'd really appreciate it if someone could tell me what this mystery horse is, or if I'm getting confused/completely loopy.

Thanks in advance! I look forward to what people may find! :D

Pardon my error, it should read "third invasion by Haiti" not "of Haiti"

I'm writing a historical novel set in the late 1800s and one of my characters is the second son of a British noble, specifically English. I have a couple of questions, not just my title one.

My two questions are:

1: what rank would a noble family have to be where the second son of a noble leaving for America to become a manager for the magician father of a friend of his not be a huge scandal, but still be a topic of conversation?

2. What reasons would the eldest son of that same noble not wish to marry and have children of his own outside of being a gay man?

I am required to find outside sources, specifically journals and articles with an identifiable author. Where can I go about finding accurate sources? What are your favorite (preferably free) ways to locate them? Thank you!!

I totally understand the American slave trade was awful. But I find it curious how it has so much more attention, as slavery was rampant all throughout history, examples such as Roman Slaves and huge amounts slavery of in a the middle east. Is there a reason behind it? Was African slavery more brutal or was it maybe because it was racial? Which is it was wouldn’t make sense either considering slavery in the middle east was also extremely racial through tribes and colour.