There is a blog that wrote by my classmate. Write a comment of this blog ( at least 200 words)

"I think that the film makers of the “Ice Bridge” documentary about the Solutrean Hypothesis were irresponsible about both the hypothesis itself and the public reaction to it.

I do not see anything inherently wrong with presenting information about a theory, even if it is fringe. But I think it’s very important to maintain skepticism, especially towards ideas that are not well supported. The documentary is rather uncritical about the theory’s lack of evidence and very weak support among archaeologists. Instead of examining the evidence that the two main proponents of the Solutrean Hypothesis, Bruce Bradley and Dennis Stanford, provide more critically, then exploring if it was reasonable and well supported, the film makers instead choose to take what they are told at more or less face value, and pass this on to the audience in the same manner. The director, in an interview, mentions how the hypothesis is “so toxic, and so discredited” that almost nobody would even be willing to appear in the documentary to say it was wrong. I honestly do not understand how you could be aware of this sort of reception and still present the idea as the documentary does.

I also don’t think it is possible to completely divorce an idea or a concept from the believers of that idea, and that it is unreasonable to try to pretend otherwise. Just because the film maker chooses to essentially ignore the white supremacists who wholeheartedly believe in this hypothesis does not mean they fail to exist, or that they would not use the documentary as some form of “proof”. At the very least, I think that the film should have taken some time to clearly state the political ramifications of the hypothesis.

Documentaries, even those about flimsy and poorly supported theories, or those that are heavily dramatized, are fundamentally educational, and are a great platform and method for disseminating ideas. This documentary, for example, could have served to help educate about the importance of having proper evidence for archaeological hypotheses. Instead, “Ice Bridge” uncritically presents a faulty idea. "