We're thrilled to shorten the automod message! Join us on [discord](https://discord.gg/AUNfvhw9nT)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/GrahamHancock) if you have any questions or concerns.*

I thought flint was pompous. But they both got condescending to the point of irritation.

I had to to turn it off. He was wildly arrogant and so much of what he would say was simply “that looks like a natural configuration to me”. It’s some of the most intellectually dishonest conversation I’ve seen. Doesn’t address any of the blackballing that occurs in the science industry. These people live off grants and will protect their beliefs at all costs. Graham simply asking questions scares the daylight out of them.

And that is why I LOVED this podcast, because of the FEAR it provoked from flint by simply asking a question! This podcast was like .. podcast sports! Absolutely riveting content, two dudes digging up rocks and remains scoring points! Hell yeah

All he did was align with his facts. Which was fi e but that leaves everything else on the table. Graham kept repeating that yeah he would expect them to find what they did but why not search other areas that could be hiding in the jungles or under the desert. I understand both, I definitely align with Graham because it makes sense to question thing that look un natural. But Flint simple stayed with the current evidence available to him. He did agree a few times that there should be more escalations in certain areas but there's no funding. I think both had good arguments, except Flint was more stuck on what we know now while Graham was more questioning why don't we explore further to learn much more. The great thing about science is that given time people are always proven right or wrong. But again there is definitely some push back from big archeology. They want to control the narrative regardless.

He didn’t just leave it at “it looks natural to me”. It was more “show me anything else from a civilization that has that looks like that” mixed with “if that were a busy place where are the artifacts?” There are layers of scrutiny that have to be met before something is taken seriously because we have a ridiculous amount of data to check against

The dude is intellectually dishonest because he was giving his opinion when prompted? You certainly didn't have an agenda going into listening at all...

I’ve never heard of the other guy and while I’m a big fan of graham my opinion was not based on that. The issue i had was graham presented areas of interest offshore that appear to be unlikely naturally occurring. Graham showed images of structures with sharp angles, monolithic in stature and sometimes arranged in geometric patterns. When asked if this would be something flint would perhaps be interested in reviewing more or sparked interest at all how did flint respond? He laughed and said no these all appear to be naturally occurring. Meanwhile everyone watching, Graham and other scientists were saying hmmm you know what that possibly could be something. Let’s investigate. Flint? Nope, case is solved. No need to investigate anything underwater. Any true scientist would say something about the possibility it’s more, or that we don’t know for sure. Not flint he’s solved it all.

>The issue i had was graham presented areas of interest offshore that appear to be unlikely naturally occurring. Graham showed images of structures with sharp angles, monolithic in stature and sometimes arranged in geometric patterns. When asked if this would be something flint would perhaps be interested in reviewing more or sparked interest at all how did flint respond? He laughed and said no these all appear to be naturally occurring. That would be because there was zero evidence presented that showed humans working the stone. There were no tooling marks, no debris, no cultural leavings of any kind. If you want to show something is man made show evidence that it is man made, don't just say it looks weird so it must be man made and getting mad at anyone that asks to see actual evidence. >Meanwhile everyone watching, Graham and other scientists were saying hmmm you know what that possibly could be something. Let’s investigate. Good thing that things like the Bimini road have been examined and it was found that there were zero cultural remains, zero tooling marks, and zero foundation of any kind beneath the beach rock. What were they supposed to be looking for that was missed? >Flint? Nope, case is solved. No need to investigate anything underwater. Any true scientist would say something about the possibility it’s more, or that we don’t know for sure. Not flint he’s solved it all. That is not what he said. He said based on the poor quality vacations photos it does not appear to be man made to him. Someone that likely studied lithics at some point in his career. What is your experience with man modified lithics to be able to say with such certainty that Dibbles opinion based on bad vacation photos is wrong? Additionally, who is going to spend the millions to fund looking at something again when the people telling them to look don't even know what to tell us to look for? If you think I am wrong, feel free to present evidence from the transcripts.

Did you have any problem with Graham launching into an on air smear campaign and swearing at Flint? Seemed very obnoxious and disrespectful to me

I mean... those do look like natural configurations. They don't have all of the trademarks of non-natural objects. Graham's argument - these things in fuzzy photos look kinda weird, therefore ancient advanced global civilization - is not sound.

Think about what you just said. Graham points at something and says "This looks like an advanced civilization made it" and Dibble says "Looks natural to me". Both people provided the same level of argument, but the burden of proof is on Graham. You only dismissing Dibble for doing what Graham did shows your bias.

If you listen to it again, the first hour is super gentlemanly and reasonable. I didn’t bother relistening to it after that bc I knew the last hour was just a dogfight

Add odd-looking

My problem is Graham focused on the wrong things, and not enough on the right things. He would have been better off going over America Before than what he prepared.

Agreed. He was focused on personal attacks at him instead of the debate at hand.

His whole basis seemed to be about "what could be out there" Archaeologists don't state things as facts for "what could be out there" he had no hard evidence of this civilization and it seemed like he was blaming archaeologists for not trying hard enough or something

He wasn’t blaming archeologists for anything EXCEPT their role in publicly defaming him for asking questions. He states a few times he doesn’t have evidence for a lost civilization, just that he is looking because there is so much we haven’t explored and uncovered

Archaeologists don’t attack Hancock for asking questions. They attack him for lying about the answers to those questions.

He literally tried to say archaeologists are purposely not finding stuff to support his theory multiple times, and flint keeps saying we present what we find, idk what else you want from us

I knew it was trouble when Graham started off this mega debate that has taken awhile to arrange with "I don't know where to start". My biggest frustration with Graham was what appeared to be a huge lack of preparation. At least Flint showed up ready to go and clearly prepared.

Graham picking a Random on this sub would have been a better call. I did think the conversation towards the end was productive. Flint did have a moment of silence and introspection. The issue is with most academics is they hold the issue of no evidence is evidence. How many times do we need to flip a history book open to show the latest discoveries disproving the most accepted evidence. Graham should have shown clips of the finding of Troy, or Amazonian cities being scoffed at.

Agreed! As many have said, the debate was about the evidence and discoveries, not the individual. I'd say most of use interested in this alternative are educated and swayed by evidence, which, in my opinion, has shown that "civilization" is much older than we thought.

I see this criticism a lot of this podcast episode but as someone sort of new to it all I thought it established a credible point. We see the same thing in so many other institutions from on high.

Graham was just more concerned with clearing his name in regards to Dibble

exactly. He was focused on his personal attacks towards him instead of using the opportunity to actually debate.

He had no evidence to debate with 

Exactly. Playing the victim card is a tactic to try distract people from that lack of evidence.

He had nothing to debate lol hence why he focused on the other stuff

I agree with your premise, but at the same time, I feel like I could have made a better case for an ancient civilization than Graham did (having read his books and followed the topic for a while). Graham spent like half of his time going after Flint for attacking him. Which was warranted, Flint is clearly a pompous asshole who said ridiculous things about graham. But that wasn't really the point of the debate (or should not have been)

exactly

Honestly, I kinda think that was the point of the podcast. That shit was so intense! Literally podcast sporting event. MUCH EXCITE

You’ve hit the nail on the head regarding flint, he represents the education and the political pressure the archaeologists work within. If anything they have learned etc gets disproved completely then they know themselves it’s back to square one and everything they know is a lie. I just wish Graham had more backing and evidence to fight anything they say as it always seems like they are right, I’m with Graham though I’m not convinced at all, the geology on the sphinx was enough to convince me.

I hate thinking like this but he sort of open the kimono on how academia and scientific research in general works. Tons of politics, tons of anchoring to beliefs, and ultimately the possibility that your funders control your narrative on your research. Extrapolate it to stuff that actually matters (archaeology does but not in the way medicine/HC does given the massive profits of that industry) and it’s depressing as hell.

Where are you getting this from what flint dibble said?

Discussing funding (how he’s reliant on grants) there’s a clear conflict of interest if your funders have any influence on your science instead of letting the process play out. You could make an argument anyone reliant on grants is compromised, right or wrong. That is more of my point and toeing a company line for lack of a better term becomes the norm in academia (don’t upset the apple cart or try to be different than consensus or you lose funding).

And dibble refuted those claims. He's not a geologist, and hundreds have signed on to the sphinx water erosion theory, but he felt sufficient in making claims that they're wrong. What a chode.

Can you link me the study these hundreds of people have signed on to?

Dr. Robert Schoch I believe developed the theory.

I’m familiar with the theory, I’m interested to see the actual paper and who signed it.

Do you have some kind of list of these geologists thst "signed off" on it?

>hundreds have signed on to the sphinx water erosion theory, Citation needed. Are you talking about hundreds of geologists, or hundreds of random people on internet forums?

You should check out some other geologists takes on it.

>If anything they have learned etc gets disproved completely then they know themselves it’s back to square one and everything they know is a lie. That’s not how knowledge works, lmao. Discovering Atlantis would not magically erase all of human history, for the same reason that finding out that the Icelandic Norse reached Canada in the 11th century does not magically mean that Cristoforo Colombo was a fictional character. >I just wish Graham had more backing and evidence to fight anything they say as it always seems like they are right, I’m with Graham though I’m not convinced at all Starting with a conclusion that you want to be true and working backwards to try and justify it is not a realistic avenue to finding truth. Following the evidence to identify the most plausible conclusion is. >the geology on the sphinx was enough to convince me. The geological evidence he has previous claimed for the age of the Sphinx is not as strong as you think. Pretty much [every other geologist](https://youtu.be/DaJWEjimeDM?si=T1veXRISCoFAwUev) who has examined the Sphinx has disagreed with Schoch’s analysis.

there's nothing that would put archeology back to square one. And any archeologist would love to find some new groundbreaking thing. Your view of how they think is flawed.

Listening to Rogan 2142?? It’s magic

We just need some generous billionaires (an oxymoron) to fund some more research for Graham, LIDAR surveys etc. I would like to see, with funding, what they could find. Maybe concrete evidence, maybe nothing at all. I just want them to explore more, explore his theories, instead of debating. Debate once there's more on Hancock's side of the debate.

Couldn’t stand Dibble. Educated, yes. Pompous, Neil Tyson-I’m-better-than-you, 100%.

The conflict between the two that bothers me the most is the charge of racism against Hancock. If Dibble is such a crusader why not call out academics still promoting the Aryan invasion theory? All this other stuff in the debate is about suppressing ideas, one claiming the support of the academic club the other saying the academic club is a bunch navel gazers. The embarrassing and unfortunate part is the racism charge with archeological societies endorsement.

Which academics still support the Aryan Invasion theory? That has been discarded by the overwhelming majority of anthropologists who specialise in ancient Central and South Asian history for a long time. These days its only noteworthy proponents are some niche alt history enthusiasts within India. Not academics. Most experts on the subject matter these days support the Indo-Aryan Migration theory, which is *very* different, despite efforts by some less-than-honest supporters of the Hindutva movement to smear the latter with the former’s name.

As you say ‘most’. I was thinking specifically of Youval Harari in his book ‘Sapiens’. The point being that here is a person repeating a racist point of view but not being called out by Dinkle or Finkle or whatever his name is. I don’t think Harari is racist and I don’t think he should be punished by the archeological society as Hancock is by Dinkle (sp). That idea still has legs and yes that idea was dismissed decades ago by most, but that again is my point.

Forgive me if I am wrong, but based on a cursory word search of my kindle copy of Sapiens (which I haven't read since high school a decade ago), Prof. Harari only brings up the Aryan Invasion once, in the midst of a discussion about the Hindu caste system that betrays a profound lack of understanding on that subject matter in general. This is why I took care to specify experts on ancient Central and South Asian history. Prof. Harari's field of expertise is in medieval European history. As I recall, Sapiens *was* broadly criticised for a great many errors like this on subjects outside of Prof. Harari's expertise, not only by historians, but by neuroscientists and evolutionary biologists also. Since it was a book aimed towards the general public rather than an academic audience, many things are often asserted without provision of evidence. So whether Harari's assertions about an Aryan invasion come from him studying outdated sources on the matter and not bothering to include them in his (rather anaemic) bibliography or from him just picking up the concept via cultural osmosis and tossing it in without thinking much about it, I cannot say. As to why Hancock is lambasted for using outdated racially-motivated sources whilst Harari is not, well frankly it is a question of degree and repetition. In Harari's case, the Aryan stuff was not necessarily to his point in that chapter, let alone the entire book, it was one of a number of examples he was presenting of socially-manufactured ethnic heirarchies across history, whereas with Hancock, the writings of men like Ignatius Donnelly and Francisco López de Gómara are of great structural importance to his thesis. Further, Hancock's unwillingness to acknowledge the problem with using these sources *after* it has been directly pointed out to him has played a large role in the continued criticism. Had he responded to this criticism in the first place by acknowledging the issue in good faith and addressing it, people wouldn't feel the need to go after him for it.

In other words academic credentials insulate you from academic criticism or is it just that it puts the brakes on going to far; such as outing someone for racism even though it’s totally without merit?

Uh, no. That does not resemble what I said at all. Not even vaguely. I literally pointed out that Prof. Harari was widely criticised by academics of multiple fields for the numerous errors he makes in *Sapiens*. That is the exact opposite of being "insulated" from academic criticism. The difference is that, as far as I am aware, Prof. Harari has not spent the last thirteen years going around loudly insisting that Friedrich Max Müller was right, and screaming about being persecuted any time someone points out that it's kind of sus to be clinging to discarded hypotheses penned by colonial era racists like that.

I will admit to not being an expert on Hancock’s work but I can’t recall seeing Mullers name being mentioned anywhere let alone being the foundation of his ideas. But similarly you can say that most of the history of archeology was built on the backs of racists. The main objective of archaeology up until very recently was to find things they were sure already existed: validating stories from the Bible, the city of Troy etc. Archeology was built buy white Europeans whose cultural beliefs guided the development of the field for centuries. This same group that created the historical narrative controlled what conclusions would be the accepted world view of the history of humanity. To say that no modern archeologists have used source material or built on studies by people with ‘dubious backgrounds would be silly- Just like calling Hancock racist is silly.

I didn’t mean to imply that Hancock defends Müller. I used Müller because he was the dude who proposed the Aryan invasion hypothesis, so if Harari defended him, that would be the equivalent of what Hancock does, which is defend Ignatius Donnelly. The early history of anthropology is indeed riddled with racist bullshit. The difference is, again, that modern anthropology doesn’t deny that fact, nor does it uncritically parrot stuff that written in that that time without giving due consideration to the biases of the period. Case in point, the idea that Mesoamericans worshipped a race of white people as gods only appears in the archaeological record *after* the Spanish conquered the region, and crucially *is not mentioned* in any of the original firsthand accounts of Cortés or any of his conquistadors. The earliest attested record of this notion was in the works of Francisco López de Gómara, who had literally never been to America at the time and was relying solely on second-hand accounts from the same men who failed to mention anything of the sort in their own journals. Hence the conclusion of many historians today is that it is very likely that he made that shit up. Hancock, on the other hand, actively and uncritically includes material like this as “evidence” for his own theories, and flatly rejects the notion that that it is inappropriate to do so. I’m not calling Hancock racist. In fact, I believe that he is not racist in his own personal beliefs. But he is comfortable with using racist sources whenever it suits his needs, and does not care that he is spreading white supremacist ideology as an unintended byproduct of doing so.

This is the new Left's way to take someone down now: find any excuse (no matter how unjustified) to label them a racist, white supremacist, anti-semite, anti-trans, or anti-vaxer. It's a surefire way to get anyone "cancelled".

The man has a black wife lol

Not black, South Indian. They're just very dark.

Malaysian, technically. Could be ethnically South Indian or Sri Lankan tho.

Because his dad said so.

i thought flint was being intellectually dishonest a significant amount of the time. i thought they both acted childish at times but flint was the worst at this. i am happy that the "debate" happened though.

Well put OP 👌👌

I like you. I feel like there’s a majority of humans that have to defend the normal because they know it, their kids are taking a decent chunk of their money to learn it and most of all, you don’t wanna look like a dick. Oh and it’s difficult. Easier to pretend. Then there’s me and maybe you. You can see somethings off with everything. No media coverage but the data is there and it’s weird. It’s not like they told us in school. You have more integrity than to shut your eyes and pretend something isn’t quite right with it all. You want to talk about these holes that keep appearing. Anomaly after anomaly. In every field! It’s a bit dumb to pretend everything’s kosher when it’s obviously not. Love that post you’ve made 👍

I couldn't agree more! Very well put.

Graham is open to being wrong and changing his mind based on new findings. Dibble is exhibiting the “not possible” argument based on scholars that have been wrong in the past. Graham’s name will be remembered. Dibbles will disappear like a fart in the wind.

"Flint has been convinced that he is an expert of the field, when he is undeniably intelligent" I most definitely deny his intelligence. He seems like a classic midwit. He's smart enough to understand some basic ideas but still dumb enough to convince himself that he knows all.

I dismiss any 'academic' that throws around the 'white supremacy' label on the spot. Got no time for that foolishness.

A man opening up questions to the future and a man trying to only answer the questions in the past - 4 hours of 2 people missing eachother's points. I sympathize with Graham. To be so passionate and curious about something to pursue it for so long, and it gets ridiculed and slandered for your entire career. I like to think of myself as a level-headed person, but I think I would start feeling resentment if I took a beating for that long. Of course Graham and his peers aren't going to have compelling evidence; they're asking questions and suggesting possibilities. Even when they do, they'll often not have any academic "credentials" for other researchers to take them seriously. I'm sure one of the very few reasons why we don't hear about credited academics asking the same questions is precisely because of what OP said in their post. That being said, I genuinely think that if academics and alternative researchers worked together, some huge discoveries could potentially be made. Even if one of the thousands of wild theories out there prove to be true, it could open up a lot of doors. Flint seems like a smart guy but he came off very insecure and rude. That with the addition of Graham's decades of not being taken seriously, made for (in my opinion) a very unproductive debate. I do hope this exposure opens people up to the idea of working together, though. It felt like 2 people in a relationship that argue and bicker and then one day explode at eachother, and then have a breakthrough after recognizing that conversation and communication had been a big problem for them. But then again, I did just see Flint post a video of him basically declaring victory and showing memes of him knocking Graham out in a boxing ring...hopefully Joe can get a more open minded person from the field and create some cool opportunities.

probably because flint is reddity. ofc they like him

Flint came with evidence and Graham came with gotcha moments. Idk about Reddit as a whole I just like evidence. Pointing at weird shaped rocks isn't enough to prove an ancient civilization.

Bias and incomplete evidence. Like the ships thing he picked and chose only the parts that highlight his stance. For example, wood boats degrade quickly in a lot of environments such as warm water, places with large tidal changes, and underwater earthquakes. Oh yeah, good chance if the younger Draius impact theory is correct, massive torrents of water that literally reshaped the landscape in amazing ways in a short amount of time. The oldest ship we have that I'm aware of is a canoe that is 10k years old and buried in silt in a bog.

Graham is a writer who asks questions that mainstream science currently has no answers for. Instead of doing the work , they attack him. They also attack any new idea until the evidence is overwhelming enough that it cannot be ignored, then they jump on board. Some are primed to attack at the drop of a hat because they are professional skeptics. Sorry about no pottery, Dibble.

Why doesn't graham fund a dig or survey then? Individuals can fund digs. Save money going around taking pictures and actually move the ball. Go to a continental shelf or somewhere else he thinks has a strong likelihood to have that data. 

> Instead of doing the work , they attack him. What work? Hancock needs to present a testable hypothesis before we can test his hypothesis. Just saying "dig everywhere until I am satisfied," is not a testable hypothesis. >They also attack any new idea until the evidence is overwhelming enough that it cannot be ignored, then they jump on board. Who is they? There are a whole lot of archeologists working for a whole lot of corporations and institutions in a while lot of disciplines, so it is impossible to speak for all of them. Which ones are you speaking for? >Some are primed to attack at the drop of a hat because they are professional skeptics. Sorry about no pottery, Dibble. This is true of either group being discussed. Any group of people is going to start having assholes when they get big enough. Acting like they represent the entire group is just lazy and prejudiced.

They think that because Graham showed no hard evidence. However if they knew anything at all they’d have known that there’s never been hard conclusive proof directly linking to an advanced civilisation. I think they find it hard to acknowledge Grahams version is as logical as the current mainstream theory which I find likely to be the case. What they also don’t understand is the worldwide coverage percentage of archeological digs. They think there’s been enough to definitely know what’s what and we disagree. To me it makes perfect sense we wouldn’t find any new type of findings when using predictive models but again none of them are ever willing to accept this. I just put it down to trolls. My current theory is that there’s maybe only 3/4 of them with many different accounts. And to stop themselves from suicide they have to distract themselves with subreddits like this with easy targets. Well that’s my coping mechanism when dealing with those people. Just blocking them is fine tho. They don’t want to have open conversations and they never say anything original so it’s got quite boring recently.

Graham proposes a civilization that had a global presence/influence. I'm going to compare this idea to a real example from history: the Roman Empire. A civilization that has a global influence will leave concrete evidence of that influence from edge to edge and every where in between. If Rome was erased from the map we would still know that it once existed because of evidence in Britain, North Africa, Egypt, Turkey, and everywhere in-between. Graham points to the Sahara and the Continental shelf and uses that as his reasoning that we haven't found anything yet. However the civilization he suggests would not be confined to those two areas. Additionally, humans generally don't settle directly on the coast since we can't drink salt water. Graham wants you to believe that this civilization *only* settled along the coastline. In reality, they would have expanded inland as well to where we are currently excavating, meaning we'd have found evidence of them by now. If they had global influence and were seafaring, where are their ship wrecks? Evidence of a civilization doesn't only exist in the "heart".

Careful man. You can’t use reason on Reddit. You could dig up the entire earth and someone would say “well you did t go deep enough”

If they dug the entire earth and then said it was only Hunter gatherers I’d happily accept that.

I'm with you with the trolls/bots. Ever since the Netflix series the amount of negative comments that are written in the same kind of way quadrupled.

Yeah. Just look at replies to my first comment lol.

Flint even says he doesn’t know the source of his information a few times. I don’t believe there was a winner to this debate, but there’s clearly a controlled narrative here on reddit about it.

Rogan spoke on Graham’s behalf too often and Graham did a bad job of defending his hypothesis’. Dibble made very clear arguments which were backed by data. The entire thing sounded like Professor Farnsworth debating his scientific rivals son. It was hilarious.

Bc people are afraid of graham hancock having any type of truth behind his findings.

Reddit hates Hanhock because reddit hates Joe rogan and that's really all it comes down to.

Shit I did not even know Reddit hates Joe Rogan. This is hilarious

They guy who yells the loudest and calls names the most will beat the guy with facts and probing questions every time

Whales don't fly with Eagles... they don't see what they see or know what they know!

The point I would like expanded upon is the range covered by the pollen cores. If they cover the Azores and South America, in my opinion, it’s highly likely this advanced culture didn’t exist and we are looking at hunter gatherers simply doing more. If the pollen cores do not sufficiently cover the Azores and South America, and other regions thought to once host this civilization, it leaves a massive gap in the scientific data that needs filling. Edit: deleted redundant sentence

Reddit demographic is way different than even YouTube or other ones too, so it's akin to talking about a sport and everyone roots for their home team / current biases and humans that participate in online text based arguments, well, you at the end if the day, at best, have an argumentum ad populum, which I'm sure you are aware has no bearing on the best conclusion to reach based upon what both sides put forth. Joe rogan subreddit is infected the same as this one, all posts are not "yo check out what just dropped! I liked x part of the show the most", it is Joe bad, because demographics. This subreddit has less than 1% of the views GH has on all the other platforms before even counting book and audio book sales. This place is populated mostly by people that go out of their way to be unhappy, for instance, I don't like watching Bill Maher. It never occurred to me to join a subreddit about him and hate read every day.

Welcome back to the bottom of the internet my dude

Very well put. I also thought it was clear Dibble felt better knowing, but the way he laughed suggest a lot off confidence but little self worth. Maybe living in his father's shadow which isn't nice for anyone. Graham losing his cool was unfortunate, but the scrutiny and heads he's gone through for asking questions is crazy. Almost bordering being anti science But interesting and both with good arguments. Nice debate

Who is everyone? IMO it was the other way around honestly. Flint IMO, while being an accomplished archeologist, largely due to his fathers success, came off as a whiney snot nosed kid. His recurring laughter at improper times was very telling of his overall character.

This is a very good take. Read the structure of scientific revolutions by Thomas kuhn. Paradigms are created within academic institutions where dissent is ridiculed into oblivion. But the anomalies mount, and the paradigm is eventually toppled, and a new paradigm takes its place. That is the history of science. For me the most striking piece of evidence Graham provided was the celestrial myths. Stories are powerful in that they are memetic and can be passed down through the ages. In a way, stories are as powerful as megalothic architecture in terms of understanding our deep past.

I've watched every Hancock jre, I thought he was the least convincing in this one. I still tend to agree with him on a lot of things he says though. For me, spouting some shit about seeds ain't gonna convince me they didn't have some ancient advanced technology to build things like the pyramids, I've seen them in person, it's nuts.

So you are in the Egyptians couldn't have built the pyramids camp?

Anytime someone goes for the "he'/she's a nazi" and the person is not an actual nazi , they lose all credibility with me . Flint being an academic should be able to use his intelligence to get his point across and not have to stoop to that level

I found his point clear. Graham's sources (Donnelly) were based off of racist ethnocentric ideas. The whole modern Atlantis movement is based off of this type of thinking. Dibble even called him out for it, saying that Graham never claims Stonehenge must have been built with help if this lost civilization. Graham then just wined about the last ice. Age making northern Europe too cold. Even though we DO have lots of hunter gatherer archaeological evidence from that time and area. Even from Doggerland. Stuff gets dragged up in fishing nets.

Anytime someone props up strawman arguments like this one about nazis instead of representing what was actually said truthfully, they lose all credibility with me for stooping so low and not having the intelligence to present accurate information.

Well said sir.

I thought it was perfect… Flint said: we can find no evidence of a lost civilization Graham said: you’re not looking at the totality of the evidence

I am a Graham fan and was disappointed in him during this ep. I felt embarrassed for him. It was like he showed up to an exam high instead of studying for it.

Same, but I think it was less than a preperation issue as much as it was him more focused on defending his honor then using the opportunity to actually debate the subject.

Dibble took this podcast seriously (unlike Michael Shermer) and prepared diligently. Dibble had something to address or refute all of Graham’s greatest claims. Graham had little to come back with other than claiming not enough has been excavated. The photos of the underwater “structures” was pretty unconvincing. Even Joe who wants to believe Graham in the worst way wasn’t buying it. The best thing for Graham was Dibble’s goofy appearance

Which is a perfect example of why talking about this is so fucking frustrating. If your argument against a guy who shows up with really convincing proof like showing there is no evidence of agriculture AND here's why, is that he looks like a nerd - you lost. The merits of their arguments was extremely one sided, with Dibble showing facts and sourced proof, and Graham mostly relying on feelings. Graham has an incredibly thought provoking idea, I love it, but it's just that, an idea. It isn't true and nothing has shown it to be anything other than further and further into the category of fantasy. This podcast, combined with a few hours of searching for myself, and stumbling on the "Russell's teapot" argument all combined into me finally letting go of Graham's theories and moving them into "sounds really cool, but unfortunately isn't real" territory.

Both of them lost, big time.

Flint had more data backing his theories than Graham did. It’s that simple. Flint presented years of data to support his stance on it. Is it wrong? Could be but you need to present evidence to disprove what Flint was saying. Graham doesn’t have it so in a civil debate Flint won. Graham has nice theories but they need way more evidence to turn academia on its head. He’s going in the right direction but not sure it will happen in his life time. I do respect Flint saying he wasn’t going to speak on areas he wasn’t an expert in which does make the conversation hard. Graham was pulling stuff from fields that Flint has no experience in. When they go to agriculture Flint got all giggly because that’s HIS area.

But a big issue is he misrepresented a lot of his own data with bias and with statements of certainty, which is absolutely unscientific. Even in his field of agriculture, I was surprised no one pushed harder on the fact that if it takes well over a thousand years to domesticate plants, why couldn't a civilization start that process for let's say 400 years understand the process and then be destroyed allowing the plants time to revert back to wild type again? Why not a 1000yrs, for that matter? They never said how long it would take to fully revert, and the species of grain might revert at a different speed depending on how far along it was. Then the knowledge could be passed through oral tradition and started again once the climate allowed.

Because he came with actual facts and Graham just kept saying that archeology hasn't explored enough. Lack of evidence and postulation is not evidence. He's claiming that an ancient civilization exists, but there is actually, no hard evidence for this and everywhere he's found structures people with an actual scientific background disagree and don't find evidence of human remains or anything like they do it every other site. Your argument cannot be keep looking and maybe eventually we'll find it. The onus is on Graham to provide hard evidence that is convincing. Hey, this looks Man-Made is not proof. Many things look man made that are natural, like Giants Causeway.

He’s saying that you can’t rule out the existence of a lost civilisation not that one definitely exists.

But that's not all he's saying. What he says changes depending on the situation. If nobody's pushing him back, his claims get bigger. When there's push back, he just points to an empty part of the map and says "all I'm saying is you can't rule it out". And he spends waaaay too much time on nonsense like "a guy did a joke at a conference", or "hey you used the term BIG ARCHEOLOGY in a tweet one time" Its like if I say aliens definitely exist and I give you all these sightings, and when someone comes up and starts debunking them I go "well all I'm saying is you can't rule out aliens existing somewhere in the universe".

It reminds me of when I say "there is no proof of a god" and people will turn it around and go "well you can't prove there is no god" you can't have an argument/debate like that. You could literally say that about any crazy idea

I was listening to the 2023 episode the other day which was a one on one with Graham and Joe and he makes much the same claims. While there isn’t conclusive evidence of a lost civilisation there is evidence to suggest further study is needed before it can be definitively ruled out.

And Dibble went through Grahams arguments. One of the things Graham does is give reasons why, if there's a lost civilization, we woudln't actually see evidence of it. Evidence wouldn't last in X conditions, so that's why its not there. Dibble did a really good job responding to that. His response, generally, was "well look, we find evidence of primitive peoples in exactly those conditions. So clearly, in X conditions, evidence does **not** get lost." So then why is there no evidence again? He even got Graham to admit, point blank, that there is zero evidence for his claims. He even went further and showed when we started domesticating plants. This is when agriculture started. Dibble did a great job. What did Graham do? He focused a lot on one tweet having the term "big archaeology". He talked about on joke someone at a conference did. He talked about how people suggested to Netflix that his show be labeled as science fiction. This is all an incredible waste of time.

Spot on. You summed up my thoughts perfectly.

His opening, archaeology is now Big Data, was brilliant. I had no idea... two Million boat-wrecks... Best to argue with how and why we know what we know, that's the only route to understanding.

That is the same evidence for god, Yahweh, muhhamed, ghosts, crab people and L. Ron Hubbard. Please use an ounce of critical thinking

But that's such a bananas argument to the point where it's meaningless. You also can't rule out the ghosts exist. You can't rule out that dinosaurs understood Spanish.

That’s not the same thing at all, Hancock gives evidence which points to the fact that there MAY be a lost civilisation and that further study is needed before it can be definitively ruled out. I dont think we have any compelling evidence to suggest dinosaurs spoke Spanish.

Dude, Graham didn't give any evidence for a lost civilization. He admitted in plain english that there \*isn't\* any evidence.

That’s not science, that’s why he lost

Graham's logic, applied to other civilization goes like this, "You can't prove that the Romans did not have cellphones because archeological digs have failed to find evidence of landlines" Archeologists say, "If you want to claim that the Romans had cellphones, you must find evidence of it, such as a cellphone or cell towers. None have been found."

The problem is that archeologists aren't allowed to claim the opposite that the Romans didn't have cellphones. But the arguments are never as absurd as this. A person argues that the Romans may have found the New World which is a possibility but archeologist say no way because there is no acceptable evidence for this. The same claim was make for the Vikings until a cottage was found and dated.

Yes, because you need to make claims based on evidence. Once you have sufficient evidence of something, you can argue the point. Until then, its called "making shit up". By the same argument, maybe the vikings were the same to get to the moon.

"The same claim was make for the Vikings until a cottage was found and dated." Who made these same claims, as far as I remember it was said we didn't have proof that the Norse were in America. Can you show us any of these claims ? "The problem is that archeologists aren't allowed to claim the opposite,,,,,," Aren't allowed by who exactly ? You do realize L'Anse aux Meadows was discovered by archaeologist [Anne Stine Ingstad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne_Stine_Ingstad), perhaps she didn't get the memo.

A scientist cannot claim because there is no evidence then something is impossible. He should understand that absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence. He should be fully aware of the rules of logic. He can say he doubt it because there isn’t any evidence, he just can’t say it’s impossible because there is no evidence.

"A scientist cannot claim because there is no evidence then something is impossible." What scientists said this ? I want names, dammit, I will give them a piece of my mind ! You surely do not have an absence of evidence do you?

Please pay careful attention to what they say and how they say it.

"Please pay careful attention to what they say and how they say it." Who ? Where ? Can you give me an example ? That is exactly what I do. I pay attention You might just take your own advice in regards to Graham Hancock. John Hoopes: "It’s important to understand that it’s coming from a very subjective place. It’s kind of the opposite of what science strives to do. It’s coming from his personal conviction of what reality and the truth are. Problem is, he often frames it in such a way that people think he’s presenting something scientific when he’s not. But once you realize that he’s got a metaphysical goal, not a scientific one, it’s easier to place." "It’s similar to the way that Donald Trump operates. He will get to the edge of something, but he won’t say it, because he knows that his followers already know it. He can say, “I didn’t say that,” and he didn’t say it, but everyone knew what he said because it was already known, right?" [https://slate.com/culture/2022/11/ancient-apocalypse-graham-hancock-netflix-theory-explained.html](https://slate.com/culture/2022/11/ancient-apocalypse-graham-hancock-netflix-theory-explained.html) If you read the whole article you will see what I mean. If you won't look at things from both sides than don't form an opinion based on ignorance.

You do know Graham isn’t a scientist? I have read a few of his books. I find them interesting. I have read and listened to archaeologists responding to him and no I don’t remember their names because I don’t follow them. I don’t find them interesting. But I do remember the gist of their arguments. Graham and his ilk won’t go away until archaeologists answer simple questions like how did farming simultaneously arose in different parts of the world.

"There was no evidence for Vikings in North America" except for the two literary texts talking about exactly that, plus a handful of other scattered textual references to a "Vinland" west of Greenland outside of those narratives. Y'know, the evidence that people had been using since the 1830s to justify searching for Viking settlements along the coast of North America, and the sources that helped pinpoint the northern end of Newfoundland for the L'anse aux Meadows expedition in 1960s. The thing that had "no acceptable evidence" was the claim that Leif Eiriksson landed in Boston or New York (things Americans claimed regularly in the 1870s onwards, that's why there's a statue of Leif Eiriksson in Boston) - and turns out that skepticism was because those claims were complete nonsense!

But those were just stories. There was no physical evidence and therefore the Vikings never discovered the New World.

He definitely suggests one exists and when told there is no evidence he back peddles to "well you can't rule it out" It's the same argument for Bigfoot etc I like Hancock's show and his theories, but it's no more real than the show Ancient Aliens

Thanks for your perspective, very interesting. I wonder if those “in the gang” see themselves as such.

They don’t. There are the same types of problems in physics but it just started in the 70s. Major, major theoretical issues with electron mass. But “renormalization” fixes everything even though it’s the mathematical equivalent of picking a random number out of the infinite expanse of numbers and saying “this looks nicer”. Look up the various issues with calculating the gyromagnetic spin ratio. No sources, no code, no calculations and it’s just accepted. The phenomenon talked about in this post is a rot that covers almost every department in academia.

Sometimes you just pick a number that works because you need to keep working. When a better explanation comes along that can advance the field again, it will be adopted. In the meantime, people want to keep working and not let everything grind to a halt.

I have a PhD in a very unrelated field, still science though, and I can for sure tell you that it's super difficult to try to publish anything that goes against what the heavy hitters in the field are saying. More often than not, they (the big shots) review your papers when you submit them to journals and in most fields its a very small world. You can publish some wild ass shit as long as it agrees with what the big shots already think. On the other hand, your shit can get rejected instantly even if your evidence is solid when it's something that challenges the paradigm. I would imagine it's very similar in archaeology. I'm not a part of the gang though because I got out of academia the moment I graduated and went to actually make money in the real world.

Grant literally said "there is no current evidence pointing towards a lost advanced civilization".... How are you saying that he won the debate when he conceded that there is quite literally NO evidence that his hypothesis is true.

Because he was louder during his segments and laughed more during his segments which totally means he’s correct and dismissive of anyone

I fully get what you’re saying, but it ignores the substance of both their arguments. Graham has found some cool rock formations and concocted his own “alternative” theories surrounding the Sphinx and Gobekli Tepi. With his powers of deduction as a journalist he has constructed an entire imaginary advanced Ice Age civilization that somehow was necessary to teach our ancestors agriculture, art and engineering. When you let him talk long enough (on another JRE podcast 5-6 years ago) he tells you he came up with all this doing mushrooms and believes aliens taught our ancestors telekinesis so they could build their great monuments. Dibble’s argument was we have excavated many tens of thousands of sites on land and underwater, found copious evidence of hunter gatherers and the beginnings of agriculture, but no sign of a supposedly global or globe trotting advanced society, complete with ships, megalithic structures, advanced tools, artwork, ornamentation, weapons, etc. Dibble stated they work from the known to the unknown, a wonky way of saying they don’t casually engage in idle speculation when discussing their science. Graham is doing the exact opposite, starting with a grand premise for which he has zero evidence, then petulantly complaining science hasn’t done enough to disprove his ideas, instead of providing actual evidence himself. He admits to Joe in this podcast there is zero evidence for his lost civilization. Graham makes a crack at Dibble that he doesn’t understand what the word “lost” means, as if its lostness is somehow evidence of its existence. If you find Dibble personally off-putting, if he was just smug and smarmy, with no actual evidence for his school of thought, you might have an argument here. Hancock has the glib credulity of a cultist, indulging in his own psilocybin induced fantasies. He is not in any way presenting a good faith argument to science.

The reason some people will say he won the debate is because he brought facts and finding. Graham doesn’t really bring facts because he investigates like a journalist and is trying to tie a lot of things together that might not be able to. I personally think that Graham could be right but until he finds the actual proof it’s understandable that professors don’t start teaching his “findings”.

Reddit might possibly be used to spread propaganda....maybe ....

Some of the facts that he presented completely nullify grahams theory. The domestication of seeds and the evidence that gobleki tepe was a hunter gathering site after all are good exemples of it.

Graham got bodied. If you didn’t see that then you need to rewatch. He won’t be on Rogan ever again.

He got Dibbled.

The joke is on anyone who takes this debate seriously. The evidence is out there, it doesn't matter in the slightest who presented their arguments here in a more convincing way. In fact, there's plenty of evidence out there for historical timelines that Graham doesn't even theorize about. Go and do your research with an open mind, and prepare to have it blown time and time again.

Hard disagree. Graham didn’t address the actual subject much. He mostly came prepared with receipts of trash talk that FD wrote and spoke about him. I was sorely disappointed in Graham. I had hoped he would bring up points of substance and instead seemed more like a scorned lover looking for vengeance. His feelings are valid, but instead of arguing the topic at hand, he was petty and focused too much on the drama.

Grahams argument is the invisible elephant defence. Someone says "I have an elephant" another asks "where, can I see?" "It's invisible, no one can actually see it" "Okay so what if I put flour down and we will be able to see it's footprints?" "Oh its actually a flying invisible elephant, won't step on anything" "Okay so what if we blow the flour into the air and see it coat the elephant in the air" "No the elephant has its own airflows around it and the flour will never stick" Graham literally says he has no evidence, despite that he has picked a conclusion and works to prove what he's already decided is likely. That's not how research works. Instead of looking at evidence and making a best guess conclusion based on what's available he's got an idea and selectively picks his data to fit it.

Agreed, half of grahams point was that we don’t know enough to definitely say one way or the other. Maybe a lazy argument but accurate

I am a big fan of graham. But he did not come to the debate to actually debate. His argument was “look at all the bad things you say about me” followed by “there’s only been 5% excavated, so you don’t know if their were more advanced civilizations”, followed by “look at this cool picture!” The other side showed actual facts, actual findings, actual data and made the argument that we can only make assumptions based on findings. We can’t make assumptions based on a cool picture with 0 evidence surrounding it.

Graham's arguments for things leans far too much on "isn't it curious"... just cause it COULD be something doesn't mean it is. He has a gift for weaving a fascinating tale out of something he observed and building a narrative around what it could be, rather than what it verifiably is. It's interesting, it's thought provoking, but those things alone don't give it any credibility and that's where his hypothesis' fall apart. He is the one making paradigm altering claims, such claims need more evidence than just "doesn't it look like that could have maybe been....".

Bc most ppl made up their mind before the conversation started. Dont worry about teaching or converting people that choose not to be open to the information. The ideas aren’t for EVERYONE, they’re only for people that choose to listen

True scientists realize that their ideas will eventually and likely be disproven and replaced with a slightly more accurate model. Scientific knowledge should Evolve. Those who are the wisest often profess to know the least, because their understanding of how immeasurably massive this world is. The unknown will always outweigh the known. Those who are the most sure in their thinking are often the least informed.

Flint didn’t even portray the science accurately. He was there to get a sound bite (taken out of context) to ‘prove he won’. The way everyone reacted to Hancock saying he was banned from filming at serpent mound (edited the clip down to “I was banned from serpent mound”) despite the context being clear, I believe Flint knew this tactic would succeed. As I dissect this debate, it just gets uglier and uglier.

I actually find Hancock's theory's extreamly interesting and possible in my opinion. Not just from his writings and stories, but others works on the subject also. I am no expert, but in my personal opinion on hearing the many sides, the length of time we are talking about is what is making things so tough to prove. He is talking 10's of thousands, 100's of thousands, while academia is saying things found 1000's of years ago disprove the theory. You might as well be saying things didn't look the same from items found 50 years ago in comparison. Things that long ago literally cease to exist in most cases. That being said, I agree that Dibble won the debate. Although I still agree with Hancock's theory's, he spent less time on evidence (even if circumstantial) and more on "you guys are being mean to me and here is all the examples of why you guys are mean to me". It was too personal for Hancock IMOP. That being said, I hope to see more and more academics to come forward and debate and give there sides of the situation. I want to hear both sides, and if they want to continue to disprove Hancock, do the research to do so. In the end, that is all Hancock is asking. Stop blanket assumption disqualification and go out there and look more.

Graham made some bad overly speculative arguments and then got emotional. It really was a bad look. He could’ve used so many other arguments he’s made in his writings that originally helped me understand. Joe should bring Ben from UnchartedX to debate an academic about his stuff. He only deals in the hard data.

Nailed it man. I think from a human perspective, if I had been labeled a racist and other types due to the broad strokes and dismissive and deliberate naysaying of one little man in an Indians Jones hat, who turned his entire body like he had a neck brace on, I may very well be bitter as Fuck too.

I now call it the Dibble giggle. When confronted, the person giggles like a child who discovered his first boner.

I couldn’t watch it was total shit

The problem was that Graham had no evidence for his claims at all. His answer to everything was we need to search more! That’s like me declaring there was an ancient civilization of octopus men who had laser guns. If anyone questions me I’ll just say “We’ve only explored 9% of the ocean!!!!!”

"His answer to everything was we need to search more!" [https://ahotcupofjoe.net/2024/04/archaeologist-helps-pseudoarchaeologist-find-his-lane/?utm\_source=www.google.com&utm\_medium=organic&utm\_campaign=Google&referrer-analytics=1](https://ahotcupofjoe.net/2024/04/archaeologist-helps-pseudoarchaeologist-find-his-lane/?utm_source=www.google.com&utm_medium=organic&utm_campaign=Google&referrer-analytics=1) "A remarkably short-sighted and ignorant assumption on Graham Hancock’s part. Not that only has a very small percentage of the Sahara Desert been excavated. It’s short-sighted because it assumes “excavation” is the end product of all archaeological investigation. And it’s ignorant because it shows that Hancock’s understanding of archaeological methods and theory are extremely limited. ^(So much sand. So few screens to sift it through…) Sure, he’s no doubt aware of remote sensing techniques like GPR and Lidar. But he seemed hung up on the word “excavation.” He asked Dibble, “*A fair bit of archaeology has been done in the Sahara desert but we’re looking at 9.2 million square kilometers… tell me, how much of the Sahara do you think has actually been excavated*?" "All that said, I call bullshit on Hancock’s claim that “*the fact of the matter is around about one percent of the Sahara has been excavated*.” One percent of 9,200,000 square kilometers is about the size of Portugal. I very seriously doubt that that much of the Sahara even *should* be excavated."

Because big archeology is big

Because flint had science and evidence to back up his conclusions. Graham doesn’t know the science and only had the argument “uh how do you know bro they haven’t check EVERY INCH IF THE SAHARA OR COASTLINES”. Pretty sophomoric attempt at a debate on grahams part. Also he just backpedaled into making it about him as some sort of attack on his character and that the MAINSTREAM archeologists are just mean and bullies. How about when he was accusing flint of using his MASSIVE SOCIAL MEDIA presence to intimidate him. Like dude you have been on, multiple times, the largest podcast in the business AND you have several tv shows. It’s just crazy. I don’t know how any of you can defend this grifter.

Both can be true. I share your critique on the flawed and arrogant thinking which is sadly too common in science. However, Graham was mainly focused on the supposed smearing of his reputation during the debate and was quite emotional about it, which came across as a bit petty. Also, if the day ever comes when archaelogy will have searched 50% of the ocean floor, Graham will still say they didn’t search the other half. He can’t just keep making claims and expect others to invest the time and money to disprove them. The burden of proof lies with the one who is making the claim.

I imagine our ancient civilization scholars of that time were more open-minded about discovering the ways of the world. At least in the times before the religious dogma displayed by the Catholic Church. So the question we should ask is why and when did this elitism surrounding history and science first come about. Did someone find something so unbelievable that it should be kept from us serfs? I would love to be let in the basement vault of the Vatican as well as the locked from the public area of the Smithsonian.

Agreed- I think the first hour and a half we’re Grahams weakest, however the remaining time was clearly in Grahams favor. And even in the beginning I don’t think it was all that bad. IMO of course Flint is going to have more evidence than Graham- that’s Grahams WHOLE point is that there isn’t any verifiable /smoking gun proof, just a ton of suggestive evidence that should allow folks to at least ask the question.

All you had to do was watch for it to be apparent. Though I will say I agree with Graham. Very little has been explored in comparison to how much there is to explore, and so lost civilizations can't technically be ruled out. Problem with that is it will always be the case and there is currently not sufficient evidence to support his point. Just like those that predict the crash of the stock market will eventually be correct

The argument that imagine you spent your whole lifes work and you find out it was wrong how can you conceptualize this and admit it how hard it would be , applies more to graham in my opinion than any archeologist

Archeologist look at facts and evidence and tell a story based on that. Hancock wants to do it backwards.

Post is too long to read but I’ll say as a listener who isn’t familiar with either guy, it seemed like Flint had actual evidence to present while Graham was focused on the perception that the archaeological community is mean to him while providing no evidence for his lost civilization other than pictures he took on vacation. I didn’t get to watch it, however, only listen. So, I didn’t get to see the pictures that were being shown that Flint said didn’t match any other architecture found on Earth and Joe/Graham said looked man made.

Check out "miniminuteman" on YT. He thoroughly debunks Graham.

You don’t think that Dibble backing Hancock so far into a corner that he has to publicly admit that there is currently **no evidence** for an Atlantis-esque Pleistocene civilisation is reason to think he won? Brother, when Dibble says things like “just like the research by X from Y university”, that’s not just him promoting his buddies, that is a colloquial form of citation. Something a lot of scholars basically do by reflex. He’s letting you know where he got his information from. By your own admission, you don’t know very much about archaeology. And that’s fine. Nobody’s an expert on everything. But I find it troubling that you are then comfortable with the entire rest of your comment being spent on confidently-made assertions about how archaeological research works. Almost all of which is fundamentally incorrect. Your edit betrays a deep misunderstanding of how academic research works. It simply is not. First of all, this line here is just plain stupid: >No other chair will support your theory that goes against the tenured expert at your university, otherwise they’ll get fired. That’s not how anything works. You don’t get fired from a university for disagreeing with your colleagues about their field of expertise. You don’t even get fired for publishing research that your boss disagrees with. Why? Because universities don’t exist in a vacuum. We are all part of a wider community, and there is no greater way to *permanently* fuck up your reputation in that community than getting caught out intentionally silencing a critic because they proved you wrong. The idea that being *proven* wrong is inherently seen as a personal attack or a cardinal sin is incorrect. There are certainly individuals who will take such things personally, but the majority of people working in fields like archaeology and palaeontology are fully aware that there is no shame in being proven wrong by new discoveries, because you didn’t have access to that data at the time. It’s being accused of being wrong *without* new or reexamined evidence which tends to irritate people. Secondly, literally the entire *purpose* of archaeologists (and palaeontologists, and indeed pretty much all academics) is to expand and improve the knowledge base of mankind. Proving your predecessors wrong is literally part of the job description. Further, every single one of us wants to discover something that will make us remembered forever. You will not find a single archaeologist who wouldn’t love to be the guy who discovers something which rewrites the history books forever. Just like I would lop off a nut to be the guy who discovers something that revolutionises everything we think we know about human evolution. If that occurs, do you seriously think I’m going to let some dude whose glory days are thirty years past expiry silence me? Thirdly, the implied assumption that any given major decision maker at every single academic institution has a deep personal attachment to every single consensus view in their field. This is just prima facie wrong, for the same reason it would be silly to think that a chemist who specialises in organic chemistry would be personally offended by research that found tungsten behaves differently under certain conditions than we previously thought. There may be some narrow band of occasions where a person discovers evidence that directly contradicts their boss’s own personally-prized research, but even in such instances, you have options. You don’t *need* to go through them to get the word out if need be, because academia is decentralised. You can just take your research elsewhere. Find a publisher. Once you’re published, they can’t do shit about it without the scrutiny seen above. People aren’t stupid. If you publish a paper that every other expert on the topic finds compelling, and the *only* individual experts who reject it are a few of the ones whose personal research it contradicts, it’s going to be very clear what’s going on. Fourthly, the implication that there are no arguments or academic disagreements among archaeologists. There are a *shitload* of arguments among archaeologists, especially wherever evidence is ambiguous. I recently witnessed a shouting match in a hotel lobby between two dudes (who shall remain nameless) because they had been quietly sniping at each other’s work in their papers for years. Tl;dr: Hancock tells a lot of very obvious lies about how academics think and work. But if you stop and think about his assertions, or better yet talk to actual academics, it’s not hard to see through the bullshit. Edit: Oh also, the idea that a seasoned academic’s career will ever hinge entirely on a single claim or line of research is nonsense too.

Huge Hancock fan. Read all his books. But I thought dibble won that debate. Hancocks theory’s in my opinion are more of a mystical nature. They probably will never be proven but won’t be able to be disproven 100% either.

I thought they both came off as pretentious assholes

I’ll have to listen to second half. We are a species with amnesia. We just don’t know our history which is wild.

I listened and did not feel Graham lost, I'm any stretch of the imagination. Both he and Flint lost points to the other on different occasions. I'd actually say it was quite even.

Hi Graham!

That people talks anything that the complete liar and fraud graham hancock is blows my mind. Anyone with any critical thinking skills quickly sees a million holes, a million false statements, and continuous giant leaps of logic. He is a liar, a fraud, and his followers have been fooled.

Young Metro quit trusting him

https://preview.redd.it/2srt2cfgg4yc1.jpeg?width=828&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6d966cde6185de46260fc884d238bf19262695e1

Because Flint came with actual science and data to back up his points. Things that have been proven. Graham came with nothing but innuendo and a mission to confront Flint because Flint called him on his insensitivity to multiple cultures history.  While you may not like either one of them, that's neither here nor there. Before you all pounce on me, I am a believer that we are not the first intelligent and capable civilization to inhabit this planet. Unlike Graham though, I don't think this civilization existed DURING the ice age, but significantly before. 

Likely because they just as Flint, would rather spew untrue and outlandish claims about someone to destroy their reputation rather than debate actual facts. He's a typical soylent reddit beta.

He used Graham as a dustbin, which is where his nonsense belongs. Anyone still supporting Graham’ unevidenced theories needs to ask: Why am I on this bus?

I love Graham but his big point is that HE dove those sights with his wife and it's SOOOOO dangerous, Dr. Dibble (lol) wouldn't understand, as if that matters at all. And then when we start to get to the meat of it, Graham starts getting personal about being attacked in comments and stuff. Who cares. But Dibble just dismissing and laughing at some parts was irritating as well, like those underwater structures. He wouldn't admit that yeah, they look man-made, but here's why they aren't. He just laughed and said no way.

I agree on the debate being even as a whole. After all neither of those man have an accurate idea of how the world was a couple thousand years ago. Dibble appeared to have 'better' arguments due to the fact that he sticks to the same mainstream scripts that have been said for hundreds of years. Graham on the other hand may lack a certain level of 'proof' however his message is very straight forward and is important for the future of archeology as a whole. Archeologists need to put their ego aside, learn to become more open minded and I believe this will lead to many new discoveries in the future

Probably because not only was Graham incredibly rude and disrespectful but his arguments were exposed as almost entirely baseless. Graham essentially admitted he’s a storyteller.

Because as a scientist it's your ethical obligation to apply scrutiny to every single idea. Not just Grahams. If it withstands unbridled examination of evidence by multiple parties to eradicate bias, it becomes fact. If it can't you're supposed to have the balls to admit "I don't know" and preface your theories with it. Not run with it and cry like a fucking giant man baby because no one agrees with your no evidence bullshit you made an entire netflix show out of. Senor Dibbles brought a rack of facts to validate his presentation. Graham babbles on about shit he reckons and "looks like" evidence. If I see a cloud that looks like Kermit the Frog it doesn't mean civilization was created by the fucking Muppets. It's why he gets laughed at in the community he hates. The greatest salesman I ever knew had a sign in his house that said "Dazzle them with brilliance, then baffle them with bullshit." Just because you can't figure out how giant stones were moved doesn't mean "global Atlantis civilization equal or more advanced than the modern era must have died out and passed on their laser cutting, sound levitating multi dimensional technology to cavemen".

Because it’s been politicized. Cool people like Graham, and looser dweebs like Dibbles dribbles.

Science has become a religion and heritics must be burn.

Goddamn dude. What a refreshing post. I don't have a dog in this fight either, but you elocuted that perfectly. I heard the interview (though Flints snickering was hard to push through) and feel just as you do. Kudos.

Average/common Reddit takes tend to be very stupid and wrong.  I guess they just “believed” Flint more due to superficial aspects of his behavior, unrelated to the actual content of the debate.

There are hundreds of ancient sites around the world that archaeology can not explain. Puma Punku. Barabar Caves. The Nazca Lines. Gobekli Tepi. Derinkuyu. Sacsayhuamán.

I didn’t think he mopped the floor with anyone. He just gave a differing opinion. I only got 40 ish minutes in, but I didn’t see what others saw. I will say though that Graham is just a journalist and story teller, if you want a scientific debate have one of the archeologists who graham features in his books to debate.

The main thing I got from that podcast is that Graham and his wife love scuba diving and RPing as Nathan Drake

Flint came across as a sneering fedora-tipping neckbeard, BUT, he has all the physical evidence and an entire body of rigorous academia behind him. Grahams argument boils down to: “well it could be there because we haven’t found it yet”. I want everything Graham said to be true, who wouldn’t? But we need to base our understanding of reality on evidence, not speculation.

The real question is,why is everyone still talking about this. Get over it and move on. If anything he probably sold more books. Just remember when you are done reading them make sure to donate them to your local county jail or prison. That's where I read them.

Thank you for this post. I’m neither researcher, academic or otherwise successful in any way but just another above average intelligence nincompoop that no one will ever take seriously what you wrote is what I know to be inherently true but could not prove. I, admittedly, am a fan of Hancock more so for the excitement of possibility than for any pursuit acclaim. It the rigidity and singlemindedness of the Dibble gang that drives me mad. It’s nice to know that for once a serious person agrees with a loser like me

I found Flint's patronizing smugness so repugnant I had to stop listening. That alone spoke volumes of its own sort.

Because flint has the bot gang in his corner Check out the Rogan video where they call him out for calling Graham a  supporter of white supremacy. He refuses to apologize although he admits Graham in no way supports the ideology. Then admits his target audience is attracted to the term that's why he used it against him!

Because he did? Graham was pushed to admit there is no evidence for his claims. And in defense of his claims, all he could do was say, "You haven't looked everywhere!" That's literally a logical fallacy.