I know exactly what you're saying; that stuff would drive me crazy in his podcasts.
I figured out he was just very much biased toward things that are exciting. Things like the moon landing being fake, or bigfoot being real, etc. And while he gave that stuff probably too much benefit of the doubt, he isn't immune to evidence or rationality.
For instance, Bigfoot and the moon landing conspiracy stuff are now dealt with in a politic "I personally can't disprove it, but it seems pretty unlikely, and all the evidence tends to come from people who are thoroughly full of shit".
And since the SyFy show, he seems to take a much more skeptical view on new assertions.
Except when it comes to Graham Hancock, Randall Carlson, et al. They still get a lot of slack. But even then, he tries to steer it toward the tangible archaeological/geological data and away from the woo-woo conclusions.
I figured out he was just very much biased toward things that are exciting. Things like the moon landing being fake, or bigfoot being real, etc. And while he gave that stuff probably too much benefit of the doubt, he isn't immune to evidence or rationality.
For instance, Bigfoot and the moon landing conspiracy stuff are now dealt with in a politic "I personally can't disprove it, but it seems pretty unlikely, and all the evidence tends to come from people who are thoroughly full of shit".
And since the SyFy show, he seems to take a much more skeptical view on new assertions.
Except when it comes to Graham Hancock, Randall Carlson, et al. They still get a lot of slack. But even then, he tries to steer it toward the tangible archaeological/geological data and away from the woo-woo conclusions.