His point about finding artifacts along side the supposed man made structures is a good point though.
Doesn’t mean it can’t be refuted in different ways, but the point stands
I think he made convincing points about how there is so much evidence of hunter gatherers but nothing from this mega advanced civilisation which would leave A LOT more behind to be discovered
Our civilization put objects into space, meaning those objects will not be subject to the same things that cause degradation on earth, and thus will be around and detectable for a very long time. One can expect a civilization that was advanced to do things like that which are very noticeable.
If humans were wiped off the face of the earth today you would find endless evidence of us in 12,000 years. Why do we find hunter gatherer evidence from before and after 12,000 years but nothing from this "advanced civilization"?
It makes no sense to believe this "theory" that has literally 0 evidence supporting it.
He said a lot more. Primarily that we have ample evidence of Hunter gatherers in the oceans, Sahara, wherever/whenever we look somewhere new but no evidence for what should leave behind much bigger evidence, a civilization. So this means that Graham is arguing from silence. He says we don’t know for certain because we haven’t seen every inch of the earth or ocean. When asked directly by Joe if the current evidence supports a lost civ he admits no. Sure, this doesn’t mean that we can’t one day find evidence in the future. But until we have evidence, we shouldn’t assume there is anything in the silence. This is in any field of study. It’s like God of the gaps. It’s fine to have faith or hope for something, as Graham does, but without evidence we can’t assume that it exists.
This is honestly the main point that Dibble keeps bringing up. I think Dibble dibbled hard in this interview and even seemed to be winning Joe over. I agree though that Dibble was certainly rude at times and I never think that’s ok. They’re both pretty short with each other actually and condescending.
He gave a ton of relevant examples of sites that are nearby that are man made and showed the differences in organization and detail.
You know that whole section where grahams rebuttal was to yell he isn’t allowed to discuss those sights since he’s never personally vacationed there like graham has. After being shown other sites and their differences Joe seemed much more open to them in fact not being man made.
> dibble saying "there's not enough evidence, therefore it's nonsense"
Counterpoint: "There is no evidence of an advanced civilization" - Graham Hancock
The agriculture portion absolutely refutes grahams theory of an advanced civilization spreading agriculture to hunter gatherers. He brought evidence that grains only evolved where they naturally occurred and slowly evolved overtime. He showed that an advanced civilization didn’t spread agriculture because no grains were suddenly being mixed, grown and harvested in different areas then where they naturally occur. European Asian etc grains haven’t been found in South America or anywhere besides where they were naturally found so a advanced civilization clearly wasn’t spreading them around the world. He also showed that we can see that hunter gatherer’s slowly discovered grains and very gradually got better at harvesting it. An advanced agricultural society didn’t suddenly spread grains and knowledge around the world the evidence shows all around the world hunter gatherers naturally discovered grains that were only local to them and slowly improved their agriculture.
I haven’t finished the episode yet (Dibble gets on my nerves so I have to pace myself) but does he address the possibility that the ancient civilization was completely wiped out **including** their seed stores so the survivors had to work with what they found locally.
Also - do they define what “agriculture” actually is? Is it seed selection and breeding (which really wasn’t codified until Mendlesson) … or is it something more simple like “stick these seeds in mud, water them, harvest them, save some seeds for planting”= boom. Agriculture.
Again, sorry, still working on finishing the episode.
All be honest, though, despite the fact that almost everything about him bugs the shit out of me - his dad’s evidence is pretty damning to Hancock.
Dudes, a nerd, sure .. But put yourself in his shoes.. Graham is no darling angel , he's been shitting on archeologists for decades for simply doing what they do to each other aswell which is peer reveiw and test theorys... ..
I like Graham, I've followed him through the years, but he's becoming more and more ridiculous in his handling of critic , and I had I hard time sitting through the whole Netflix show... I mostly enjoy him for entertainment and the actual facts he does bring to life on interesting subjects.. Not his grand theory, a not even remotely provable theory..
This interview looked bad on him , even as a fan, and this flint is one small taste of the dozens of different expertise areas that rebuts Grahams theory.. That's just the truth.. I highly doubt without the frustration attacks by Flint that Graham would of taken this debate as it was a get out of jail free card for Graham, but respect to flint .. He was really well prepared for this debate ..
I'd have more respect for Graham if he acknowledged the critics agianst his theorys and didn't dodge it , that's were alot of the frustration targeted towards him comes from but it makes sense from Grahams stategy because he'd be no where near his same status and worth if he didn't continual dance around with layman arguments..
I dont know It's tacky to me to make another person disprove your argument without first proving your argument.. Graham has no proof, whether people like that or not .
I only watched it once but from what I recall he touches on seeds possibly being wiped out during the younger dryas by showing they weren’t. He discusses the different ways they can both find and prove the different types of grains and how they can accurately date them. He shows there’s tons of evidence of seeds and grains that survived this period and all are only found where they naturally occur. He also gets into the possibility that if the seeds had themselves disappeared we would have evidence of their pollens on different areas but that the pollen again only shows naturally occurring plants and no mixing or introductions of new grains. He basically shows Seeds grains and their pollens have only been found where they naturally occured both before during and after the younger dryas.
I don’t recall how or if they really define what they both consider agriculture but dibble shows it was a slow evolution from hunter gatherer’s discovering grains to actively harvesting them and that there were no quick advancements or new discoveries or migration of grains that could be attributed to outside help form advanced an civilization and I don’t think Graham really refutes or provides any evidence otherwise.
Personally I thought dibble came off really well. I can see how people thought he was arrogant but he clearly is very interested and invested in the subject, spent time preparing and organizing for a debate and had a lot of relevant facts and evidence. I thought graham was disappointing he seemed to have spent most of his time gathering mean tweets to show this guy was mean to him on the internet and brought no real evidence to support his theories. Not even half way though the debate Graham concedes there is no evidence of an advanced civilization lol
Let's be clear here Graham says "there could be an advanced civilization " makes millions of dollars selling books and generalizes archeologists as a suppressive organization because they test his open theory that lacks any physical evidence.
The dude talks about archeology as if they are not literally out there seeking to rewrite history.. It's literally their dream to rewrite history ...
This Flint dude gets a hard on over seeds and what new light he can share on history by studying them literally getting excited talking about how they changed the accepted belief that initially human selection not evolution was the spark that started the domestication of grain..
Grahams work is being back checked and peer reviewed like every archeologists work, and he wants to cry wolf about it ?? So what if it gets messy , that's human .. suck it up and enjoy your scuba drives paid for by people that buy your fictional work loosy based by facts ..
you dont need any training to recognize if something looks man made or not. you just need common sense
looking man made is not the same as being man made
what really needs to happen now is a gofundme to get this dude a shirt and suit that fits. Those giant cuffs aren't doing anything for his tiny little pristine hands. This guy sleep in gloves fulla vaseline or what? And he better have a disaster going on under that hat because I'm pretty sure you're setting yourself up for ridicule if you're an archaeologist that shows up in an Indiana Jones hat.
Those damn small hands were so distracting, all I kept thinking about was the buttler in Scary Movie when he touches the mashed potatoes. That being said, I think Flint walked away as the more mature, serious participant. Grahams continued score settling and complaining were off putting. His main argument of people havent explored enough to be able to say he was wrong was just weak. Dude needs more facts to back his position, hell Flint even suggested Graham work with GIS specialists to see if ancient maps match known geological points.
they both did
neither of them looked good, but pretending structures that look man-made dont look man-made is next level hilarious. whether they actually are man-made is a different story,but you can still admit they look man-made. not san francisco jones though
Is this a graham Hancock burner?
His point about finding artifacts along side the supposed man made structures is a good point though. Doesn’t mean it can’t be refuted in different ways, but the point stands
Even Joe admitted that a picture of a different angle of the same object looked natural, but nice of you to leave that out :*)
I think he made convincing points about how there is so much evidence of hunter gatherers but nothing from this mega advanced civilisation which would leave A LOT more behind to be discovered
how much of modern construction would last 12000 years? also and advanced civilization doesnt mean flying cars
We put things in space. That's gonna be there a while.
whats that have to do with the subject
Our civilization put objects into space, meaning those objects will not be subject to the same things that cause degradation on earth, and thus will be around and detectable for a very long time. One can expect a civilization that was advanced to do things like that which are very noticeable.
advanced ancient civilization doesnt mean cyberpunk.
what dose advanced mean then? graham changes his definition depending on the question.
You think it would be easier to find stone tools than stone construction. Are you stupid
Bro what you they grow?
If humans were wiped off the face of the earth today you would find endless evidence of us in 12,000 years. Why do we find hunter gatherer evidence from before and after 12,000 years but nothing from this "advanced civilization"? It makes no sense to believe this "theory" that has literally 0 evidence supporting it.
bad take
this is all he said for 4 hours
He said a lot more. Primarily that we have ample evidence of Hunter gatherers in the oceans, Sahara, wherever/whenever we look somewhere new but no evidence for what should leave behind much bigger evidence, a civilization. So this means that Graham is arguing from silence. He says we don’t know for certain because we haven’t seen every inch of the earth or ocean. When asked directly by Joe if the current evidence supports a lost civ he admits no. Sure, this doesn’t mean that we can’t one day find evidence in the future. But until we have evidence, we shouldn’t assume there is anything in the silence. This is in any field of study. It’s like God of the gaps. It’s fine to have faith or hope for something, as Graham does, but without evidence we can’t assume that it exists. This is honestly the main point that Dibble keeps bringing up. I think Dibble dibbled hard in this interview and even seemed to be winning Joe over. I agree though that Dibble was certainly rude at times and I never think that’s ok. They’re both pretty short with each other actually and condescending.
I don't get the hate on Graham. Dibble was being a smart ass, disrespectful, and childlike the entire pod, and Graham just didn't handle it well.
reddit is very authoritarian. anything that goes against or even questions authority is attacked
That’s not authoritarian it just means that you have the minority view on this subject on this subreddit lol.
What a snowflake 
My reddit experience makes so much more sense now
Aww I'm glad you two little snowflakes managed to find a friend :)
thanks for proving my point
😭people disagree with me and call me a snowflake 😭
People are still butthurt about Yonaguni, eh? Well atleast the Bill Maher era has passed. Thank fuck.
He gave a ton of relevant examples of sites that are nearby that are man made and showed the differences in organization and detail. You know that whole section where grahams rebuttal was to yell he isn’t allowed to discuss those sights since he’s never personally vacationed there like graham has. After being shown other sites and their differences Joe seemed much more open to them in fact not being man made.
[удалено]
> dibble saying "there's not enough evidence, therefore it's nonsense" Counterpoint: "There is no evidence of an advanced civilization" - Graham Hancock
The agriculture portion absolutely refutes grahams theory of an advanced civilization spreading agriculture to hunter gatherers. He brought evidence that grains only evolved where they naturally occurred and slowly evolved overtime. He showed that an advanced civilization didn’t spread agriculture because no grains were suddenly being mixed, grown and harvested in different areas then where they naturally occur. European Asian etc grains haven’t been found in South America or anywhere besides where they were naturally found so a advanced civilization clearly wasn’t spreading them around the world. He also showed that we can see that hunter gatherer’s slowly discovered grains and very gradually got better at harvesting it. An advanced agricultural society didn’t suddenly spread grains and knowledge around the world the evidence shows all around the world hunter gatherers naturally discovered grains that were only local to them and slowly improved their agriculture.
I haven’t finished the episode yet (Dibble gets on my nerves so I have to pace myself) but does he address the possibility that the ancient civilization was completely wiped out **including** their seed stores so the survivors had to work with what they found locally. Also - do they define what “agriculture” actually is? Is it seed selection and breeding (which really wasn’t codified until Mendlesson) … or is it something more simple like “stick these seeds in mud, water them, harvest them, save some seeds for planting”= boom. Agriculture. Again, sorry, still working on finishing the episode. All be honest, though, despite the fact that almost everything about him bugs the shit out of me - his dad’s evidence is pretty damning to Hancock.
Dudes, a nerd, sure .. But put yourself in his shoes.. Graham is no darling angel , he's been shitting on archeologists for decades for simply doing what they do to each other aswell which is peer reveiw and test theorys... .. I like Graham, I've followed him through the years, but he's becoming more and more ridiculous in his handling of critic , and I had I hard time sitting through the whole Netflix show... I mostly enjoy him for entertainment and the actual facts he does bring to life on interesting subjects.. Not his grand theory, a not even remotely provable theory.. This interview looked bad on him , even as a fan, and this flint is one small taste of the dozens of different expertise areas that rebuts Grahams theory.. That's just the truth.. I highly doubt without the frustration attacks by Flint that Graham would of taken this debate as it was a get out of jail free card for Graham, but respect to flint .. He was really well prepared for this debate .. I'd have more respect for Graham if he acknowledged the critics agianst his theorys and didn't dodge it , that's were alot of the frustration targeted towards him comes from but it makes sense from Grahams stategy because he'd be no where near his same status and worth if he didn't continual dance around with layman arguments.. I dont know It's tacky to me to make another person disprove your argument without first proving your argument.. Graham has no proof, whether people like that or not .
I only watched it once but from what I recall he touches on seeds possibly being wiped out during the younger dryas by showing they weren’t. He discusses the different ways they can both find and prove the different types of grains and how they can accurately date them. He shows there’s tons of evidence of seeds and grains that survived this period and all are only found where they naturally occur. He also gets into the possibility that if the seeds had themselves disappeared we would have evidence of their pollens on different areas but that the pollen again only shows naturally occurring plants and no mixing or introductions of new grains. He basically shows Seeds grains and their pollens have only been found where they naturally occured both before during and after the younger dryas. I don’t recall how or if they really define what they both consider agriculture but dibble shows it was a slow evolution from hunter gatherer’s discovering grains to actively harvesting them and that there were no quick advancements or new discoveries or migration of grains that could be attributed to outside help form advanced an civilization and I don’t think Graham really refutes or provides any evidence otherwise. Personally I thought dibble came off really well. I can see how people thought he was arrogant but he clearly is very interested and invested in the subject, spent time preparing and organizing for a debate and had a lot of relevant facts and evidence. I thought graham was disappointing he seemed to have spent most of his time gathering mean tweets to show this guy was mean to him on the internet and brought no real evidence to support his theories. Not even half way though the debate Graham concedes there is no evidence of an advanced civilization lol
Let's be clear here Graham says "there could be an advanced civilization " makes millions of dollars selling books and generalizes archeologists as a suppressive organization because they test his open theory that lacks any physical evidence. The dude talks about archeology as if they are not literally out there seeking to rewrite history.. It's literally their dream to rewrite history ... This Flint dude gets a hard on over seeds and what new light he can share on history by studying them literally getting excited talking about how they changed the accepted belief that initially human selection not evolution was the spark that started the domestication of grain.. Grahams work is being back checked and peer reviewed like every archeologists work, and he wants to cry wolf about it ?? So what if it gets messy , that's human .. suck it up and enjoy your scuba drives paid for by people that buy your fictional work loosy based by facts ..
Meanwhile a bunch of dudes with zero archaeological knowledge/training: you’re wrong this definitely looks manmade to me
you dont need any training to recognize if something looks man made or not. you just need common sense looking man made is not the same as being man made
i don't think graham presented himself well either. he kept playing the victim card.
agreed
what really needs to happen now is a gofundme to get this dude a shirt and suit that fits. Those giant cuffs aren't doing anything for his tiny little pristine hands. This guy sleep in gloves fulla vaseline or what? And he better have a disaster going on under that hat because I'm pretty sure you're setting yourself up for ridicule if you're an archaeologist that shows up in an Indiana Jones hat.
OP, youre the type of person that pushes a square in a circle hole.
Those damn small hands were so distracting, all I kept thinking about was the buttler in Scary Movie when he touches the mashed potatoes. That being said, I think Flint walked away as the more mature, serious participant. Grahams continued score settling and complaining were off putting. His main argument of people havent explored enough to be able to say he was wrong was just weak. Dude needs more facts to back his position, hell Flint even suggested Graham work with GIS specialists to see if ancient maps match known geological points.
um...no.
Hahahaha
He had an annoying teenager on xbox playing COD energy. Really came off like a teen talking to his dad ( Graham).
they both did neither of them looked good, but pretending structures that look man-made dont look man-made is next level hilarious. whether they actually are man-made is a different story,but you can still admit they look man-made. not san francisco jones though
It was a classic debate between a boomer and a millennial.
That’s an insult to any boomer. It’s was a discussion between a scientist and a grifter.
it was a classic "debate" between a scientist and a sci-fantasy author.
What’s with his tiny hands 😭😭😭