I learned a lot with this animation. Thanks for sharing!
I'm not really sure what I think about this SS episode. I've watched a few of your others and enjoyed them because you mixed alot of facts with history and religion, etc... But you were always really aware of what you were teaching. I have to agree with others on here that it seems like your starting to teach without reviewing both sides of your information. From what your latest news stated your now living with your friend (happy for ya btw), which the dude seems like a happy go lucky, straight forward kinda guy. I just hope that isn't impairing your judgement on the information your teaching to your viewers, I know a change in life is exciting. Your a teacher now, hell you taught me some good stuff through your videos. You have an obligation now, as a teacher (especially someone delving into a lot of unprecedented research) to really study on your field, because whatever you teach, people will listen and may even change their way of life to whatever you describe is healthier. If your gonna talk about subjects that don't have any solid evidence to really back it up then please state that their just theories based on your current knowledge(granted I didn't check your sources, just referring to the previous comments on here). I just don't want to see you lose your credibility, because once you lose that, its gonna be very hard to get it back...
Anyway, your animation was fun to watch like always, sound was good except the few times the voices had the fuzz sounds. Music choice was enjoyable, and I love the characters your bringing into your series. Something does feel off about this one compared to your older episodes though. Can't wait to see more from you though :)
alot of haters
I actually know nothing at all about any of this crystal stuff, so im just going to stay out of it and comment on what i do know.
The animation and images were fairly nice, im never to fond of putting real life images into a flash animation but i suppose it makes sense when your trying to do an informative documentary.
Terminology and Sources
I liked your illustration style and your dictation is very good and clear.
Though your claims do not reflect generally accepted scientific knowledge, I will not argue them with you since reviews to this effect have already been posted several times and you have stated that you are firm in your beliefs.
However, I would like to point out that the use of certain accepted terms may lead to confusion. As an example, a living object is generally understood to have six characteristics: homeostasis, organization, metabolism, growth, adaptation, response to stimuli, and reproduction. I will not define these terms here since the definitions are lengthy, but crystalline structures as a whole do not maintain homeostasis, metabolize, adapt, respond to stimuli, or reproduce. Classification of crystals as living organisms may cause confusion since they do not match these characteristics (however, classification of crystals as organized structures is perfectly accurate and the comparison of crystals to living organisms is evocative but still clear). Unconventional use of other terms such as energy (which has a more rigorous definition in physics: the ability of a system to do work measured in units of kgm/s^2 in SI) may cause similar confusion or misunderstanding. I would urge you to either preface similar future pieces with the way you will be using such terms (for instance, describing the definition of living objects that you use) or making more explicit the metaphorical sense in which you use the terms.
However, as a piece through which you wish to educate, I applaud your citing of relevant sources. On the other hand, the quality and nature of the sources should always be checked to ensure that they are appropriate for the type of information you wish to obtain. Reputable and accepted sources such as scientific journals, governmental organizations, or similar institutions can generally provide the most up-to-date scientific information if you wish to present a scientific piece.
TL;DR: Good job on citing sources; however, the nature of the sources should be thoroughly checked in an educational science piece (or the nature of the piece more explicitly stated). It would be a good idea to clarify the nonstandard use of terms with pre-existing definitions or their use as metaphor (if that is their intended use).
...I think it's time we had a talk.
I've been a watcher of your series for a good long time now. And to the best of my knowledge, while some of your research and knowledge has been... er... "questionable", I've never fully suspected you didn't really know what you were talking about.
...but then came that complete trite about the Crystal Skulls.
Have you even googled Crystal Skulls? Even once? I did, and to my surprise, I learned that the Crystal Skulls were likely created in the 1950's. In fact, every single piece of evidence, from the type of crystals used to the manner in which they were shaped to the dates that they were attained, indicate that not one of the skulls existed before the 1950's. And you know, I honestly don't know if you willfully ignored that information, or if you didn't know about it in the first place, but either way, this is inexcusable.
Look- far be it from me to tell you what to believe. Belief is one of those sacred things that should really be left to the individual. I'm not going to tell you that what you think is stupid. But by spreading this sort of groundless misinformation, it's starting to become HARMFUL, and that HAS to stop. You cannot keep making these videos and present information in a factual manner when the information is wrong. It's one thing to say that aliens are watching us. It's another to say that the Crop Circles are their attempts at communication, when that was an ADMITTED hoax from two talented artists. It shows willful neglect to your audience and a lack of respect for the subject matter.
It would of been so easy to avoid. Address the controversy with the Crystal Skulls, not ignore it. If you could of given me one, even ONE tiny bit of information that you dug up that might contradict what I've read about the 1950's dating, I wouldn't be so bothered- because then at least you were aware of the issue, called the audiences attention to it, and put in your thoughts. As it stands, though, I can only assume you knew and didn't want other people to be aware of it, or that you simply didn't know, which illustrates your own ignorance on what you're trying to preach.
You talk about expanding your vision, but you might be the most narrow-sighted of all, right now.
Look, a man who's only heard jazz music his entire life is going to think jazz is the best kind of music in the world. I'm going to assume the best in you, Jordan, and think that you've been listening to way too much jazz as of late. Please- refresh your ears a bit. Listen to some Rock and Roll or Pop or Rap for a bit. Even if you've heard them before, give them another listen, then look at what you're saying again. If nothing else, it might encourage you to do some fact-checking on these sorts of things.
...if not, I'll have to start attempting to blam this stuff, so long as it claims to be "Informative".
Here's hoping for the best.