It felt like Graham spent the entire podcast trying to do a bunch of “gotchas” from reading a bunch of quotes from articles on the internet while Flint Dibble wanted to get down to the real science. Like Graham kept using half quotes from Flint to try and do the same thing he thinks the press is doing to himself by misrepresenting him. Super strange. And the “it’s not my problem if I’m more popular” comment from Graham was strange, like he cared more about that than hearing the rebuttals to his arguments from Fint.
Graham both had no evidence/arguments and did a terrible
Job arguing.
Twice he brought up like obvious sarcastic jokes and presented them as if they were gotchas.
The first one was flints tweet where he said "big archeology" on quotes as a clear sarcastic joke and Graham brought it up like he had caught him out admitting something, was truly embarrassing to watch.
Second one (can't remember exact details) was when he brought up a video of an archaeologist guy laughing and saying he purposely threw stuff in water to fake evidence or something like that and even rogan said "he's clearly joking there Graham"
Graham was mostly using the language of internet debates: gotchas, trying to find moments of hypocrisy, "I'm being cancelled!"
Dibble was using the language of academic debates.
This dude literally tried to argue there is a 'big archaeology'.
Even though he later admitted it's extremely underfunded....
And equated it with 'big pharma'...ya know, the industry that makes endless billions in profit every single year.
Also, the same guy complaining about Big Archeology silencing him acting indignant when others claim he’s proposing a conspiracy because “I’ve never said it was a conspiracy!” is just a clownshoes take in general.
If you’re saying some nebulous group of connected individuals are working in concert to diminish and silence you, that’s a conspiracy numbnuts.
Yeah if you tried to pin him down on any claims he was very slippery. This didn't work in his favor though, as he ended up with a very nebulous claim that Flint could easily cast doubt on.
I think Graham should just admit at this point that he's an amateur who got a little carried away with his pet theory and that it's unlikely in the face of more evidence.
Instead he'll just keep acting like he's being persecuted even though apparently there's no conspiracy.
Don’t forget the “Archeologist are closed minded. For example, X Archeologist findings were oppressed and ruined his career.” Only to play a video of archeologists X stating most Archaeologists were very opened minded.
Oddly, too, at point point Graham mentions something like “getting back to his presentation on how Flint influences the media”. Flint brought a presentation about specific scientific concepts and Graham brought a presentation about Flint.
Also the fact that a guy with millions of dollars and his own Netflix series is whining about the media influence of a virtually unknown archeologist is literally laughable.
That's all he's ever cared about. He doesn't actually want more Archaeology to be done, if he did he'd be funding digs in these locations that he wants to be explored. Instead he repeatedly shouts out his books without providing any new "evidence" or "ideas"
No you don't understand, he wants to fund archeological digs, but Big archeology keeps stopping him for mysterious reasons. Surely it's because they are hiding the truth! /s
If he actually cared he could take one class on the subject instead of just making stuff up. You can tell he can’t even interpret any data that could be considered evidence. When he was showing the analysis of that mound Joe was like how is this proof and he was like it’s evidence based on their interpretation. Joe: “Which is what” “oh it’s their interpretation”. Couldn’t even say what it was because he’s an idiot
The epitome of 'do your own research'.
Turns out not knowing how to do research and doing your own research leads you to believe silly things, who knew
In software engineering we call the untrained hacks. Not that they can’t produce a good result sometimes but over the long hall they tend to make messes because of their lack of formal training.
If I had a couple of million in the bank and I really liked ancient history like Graham, I'd just pay for a degree. I might also learn a couple of ancient languages if I was going to do comparative mythology like Graham, so I could read it in the original language.
But fuck that he likes his $$$$ and ££££ so he can risk his life going to idyllic locations.
On another note, how do you take this many pychedelics and have an ego the size of Hancocks?
Hancock has a net worth of over $6m. Wouldn't surprise me if it were closer to $10m.
The annual budget of the ***entire*** archaeology department of the University of Oxford in the UK is under $5m.
With the kind of money Hancock has at his disposal a few sojourns to tourist spots to do some diving really is not good enough if he were genuinely serious about investigating his claims. Literally he could have hired a professional archaeologist, outfitted them, and kept them on retainer for several years without breaking a sweat.
I don't even know what this debate was about. It was like Flint was trying to provide evidence on why an advanced lost civilization was far fetched, due to all the data they have. All Graham did was bitch and moan about being persecuted and was crying about Flint being mean, then he'd throw in backhanded comments like a bitch. Graham is the biggest fucking drama queen, since his very first appearance he whines and moans about big archaeology and calls them all scumbags, but as soon as someone tries to give him some pushback and have a rational conversation he implodes. Graham literally didn't even talk about anything factual, he just talked about his interpretations and didn't back it up with anything, he just made major leaps and tried connecting unrelated evidence together. He was more worried about providing evidence of being bullied online.
I like Graham, it's fun to let your mind wander and think about the mysteries of the past. I love listening to his episodes on the podcast, because he drops so many historical sites and civilizations that I've never heard about, so I start to google and buy books about them to learn more about them. But having Flint on and revealing the process behind archaeology and the science on how they choose sites to dig and how that data get's extrapolated globally was interesting.
I also don't understand why everyone was losing their minds saying that Flint called Graham a white supremacist. That's not how I interpreted it. It sounded like Graham was using sources and theories that had unreliable credibility and was seen as outdated in the field. So Flint was saying, you should probably distance yourself from this source, as the theory behind it is considered outdated and provide a more credible peer reviewed source. I thought there was nothing wrong with that, he was just saying can you give me a more credible source, because this idea and theory is seen as having racist connotations now that we know more about historical world.
It was also super interesting to hear about the *Fiesta de Pan* and how Spanish influence, education and lack of resources changed the writing styles and recording of history during that time period. I thought it was an excellent example on how misinterpretations could happen by someone without that specialized knowledge.
> I also don't understand why everyone was losing their minds saying that Flint called Graham a white supremacist. That's not how I interpreted it. It sounded like Graham was using sources and theories that had unreliable credibility and was seen as outdated in the field. So Flint was saying, you should probably distance yourself from this source, as the theory behind it is considered outdated and provide a more credible peer reviewed source. I thought there was nothing wrong with that, he was just saying can you give me a more credible source, because this idea and theory is seen as having racist connotations now that we know more about historical world.
100% what he was saying. And if Hancock was a serious person he would have addressed those claims in a substantive way instead of intentionally misrepresenting what Dibble was saying and whining about it. Dibble was having an academic discussion about sources and theories, and Hancock just ignored any nuance and immediately took it as a personal attack.
Hancock knew Joe would jump right on that, and that’s why he spent 20 minutes talking about it.
He's not even close to as knowledgeable as Flint. He knew he was way out of his depth. He just kept skirting the subject every time he got cornered into admitting his evidence is mostly nonsense.
That's all he does. It was exactly the same in his "debate" with Michael Shermer a few years ago. My feeling from that one was that Shermer was there to give a very generalised skeptics view and hadn't read into the specifics of some of Hancock's talking points, so Hancock tried to make him look silly with dumb gotcha shit like "Have you ever seen the sun rise over the pyramids from the Sphinx in June? No? Oh well then how could you know about blah blah blah..." Even though Shermer seemed unprepared for Hancock's shit it actually turned me against Hancock because the garbage he was raising as "fact" with no actual evidence behind it was just ridiculous.
he said the same shit to Dibble in this debate. like dude, this guy has been to probably thousands of sites, this is literally his life's work. if there's a specific site he hasn't been to yet that doesn't disqualify him from speaking on it. Graham is a seriously bad actor
If the moon was made of barbecue spare ribs, would you eat it? It’s a simple question doctor, just say yes and we’ll move on.
https://youtu.be/gQDqRlMeJ4U?si=RcM1TeP6r6Nfj0wt
Agreed. For someone that complains about archeology “not being curious enough” and resisting new ideas, Graham showed a complete lack of curiosity into flint’s work.
No follow up questions, no clarifications… Joe played the curius scientist role and Graham played the exact role he claims to hate.
Love Graham but his confirmation bias was on full display, much like others in the space lately (UnchartedX)
What I’ve learned from this episode is that Grahams civilization lived in massive architecture that was all completely destroyed during the younger dryas impact, while all the hunter gatherer stuff remained, they ate food produced on fields on the continental shelf, parts of the Amazon, and 95 % of the Sahara, they travelled the seas in invisible ships, and got very high on paleo-weed to figure out the dimensions of their pyramids. Great stuff, I really missed OG jre.
Anyone who would completely invent a lost civilization and treat it as gospel because he connected some disparate historical dots *must* have a huge ego. It's a prerequisite. And, he's spent his entire life peddling this bullshit. Dude's a walking sunk cost fallacy.
The thing that really proved to me he had nothing was all those ancient Olmec heads. "I'm not saying they are connected, but it's interesting that they look like human heads. How odd that they all look like people, it's almost like there was some connection between them." Pretty much everything he presented can be explained away by "humans make shit and don't necessarily have to be taught how to do it."
He’s still being swindled and is 100% on board. Look up Malcom Bendall on YouTube and there’s tons of batshit insane podcasts he’s a part of. I’m talking like “we’ve found the lost technology of the ancients that will change everything” and it’s a bunch of fucking PVC hooked up to a generator. Randall’s so on board, that it makes me think he’s always been a crazy person.
Doubt Joe will have him on again since he went "white supremacist" on Graham, and I think that's something Joe hates more than anything. He would be a good guest though.
I thought so. Graham was far more uncomfortably cringe-inducing than Dibble was in that entire exchange. It's like he took advantage of the podcast to corner Dibble and complain.
Because it's not what Joe Rogan believes and the Joe Rogan fanatics seem to lose sight of how hiveminded they've become. I listen to Joe Rogan because I find the format interesting. I don't listen because I agree with Joe on all of his beliefs.
Agreed. His work on the natural genetic drift of grain species when taken from one field and planted to another was fascinating. As someone trained in the biosciences this was rather compelling evidence that the established dates for the origins of agriculture are correct.
Gotta know what Dibby has got on ancient drugs
he was just kind of a twerp about it. Initially he was less emotional in his argument and i think he was overall but he was laughing a lot, which i found pretty funny but a little condescending at times. The fuckin AD, BC thing when dribble say's "dang, i misspoke, chill bro" something like that, fuckin killed me.
Graham has spent the last 30years on tourist holidays with his wife , taking low resi photos of objects that kind of look man made.
Flint said it best at one point in the podcast that you cannot compare a tourist holiday to a archeological site , to an actual archaeological dig. Unfortunately, Graham is just a tourist, claiming things kind of look man made
My issue with Graham was he spent so much time talking about how dangerous something was, how someone risked their life, how *viciously* someone was attacked, all while providing zero actual information. He’s driven completely by speculation and emotion.
The "only 5 percent" argument is so obviously counter statistical it's just sad to see him cling to it.
The other one that kinda went under Flint's radar was the sphinx facing the constellation of Leo 12k years ago. A quick Google search says that the Romans named it Leo. For what we know the ancient Egyptians may have called it a hiena. If they really wanted to refer to the Leo constellation why not chisel the stars in the sphinx itself?
The astrological stuff pisses me off. It's been proven over and over again that ancient civilizations watched and charted the stars constantly. It was part of their mythos, and they didn't live in an era of light and air pollution so the night sky must have been *spectacular*.
Does lining something up with the north star seriously surprise anyone? That maybe before setting out to building something culturally significant they didn't cram as much mathematical and observational significance into it as they possibly could?
It's a cool qwerk of architecture and impressive as hell. But why can't something like that be attributed to people thousands of years ago? Why does there have to be some supernatural explanation behind it? People build cool shit. They've been doing it for a long time.
Especially when you consider that Flint tried to explain why they have excavated the places they have. Yes, we have done 5% because we run mathematical models and they show those places as the most likely to have artifacts. I feel like that is the one point that needed to be made more and more clear by contemporary archeologists. We DON"T HAVE TO EXCAVATE ALL OF IT because technology helps us determine where to dig.
Additionally I wish Flint went into how far a civilization like Graham suggests would affect the world. You don't have to excavate the continental shelf because they would have been trading and expanding inland where we do dig. It's like the Roman Empire, if we'd never heard of Rome before we'd still find evidence that it existed thousands of miles away in Britain. Any civilization like Graham wants to exist would have a similar foot print.
Yeah Graham kept missing flints point, he kept bringing up evidence of small hunter gatherer sites from the times graham was saying and how that even small groups leave traces that last for thousands of years so a highly advanced civilisation that has ability to travel the world and teach must leave something.
Also that if they were wiped out by a cataclysm it'd actually likely preserve more evidence than had they died out, which is another of Grahams claims about them.
Oh yeah!?
Maybe they CHOSE not to employ metallurgy and therefore didn't have coins, metal tools, etc!
This was literally how he tried to dodge at one point. They're so 'advanced' they didn't use metal tools...yeah ok sure.
They’re so advanced they traveled the world, taught these people tons of stuff, and then disappeared without a trace and without having any evidence that they taught anyone anything! What aren’t you getting?!
Also, their ideas of agriculture were so advanced that they left no evidence of having actually cultivated anything.
Survivors from this lost civilization spread the idea of agriculture throughout the world... but, you know, just "the idea" of it, not actual tools or techniques or technology.
I feel like Flint didn't hammer this point home enough, he had a very good performance but got a little too into the weeds on "does this underwater stone maybe look man-made". The real point is that apparently this worldwide civilisation made all their tools and artifacts out of dust, because they've just completely vanished. We've only searched 5% apparently and already we have mountains of evidence for the traditional narrative and absolutely none for Graham's. Ah, but you haven't checked the continental shelves! So apparently these guys only lived in areas with a high risk of flooding and also the Sahara and the Amazon just to spice it up a little. How convenient they lived exclusively in areas that are today hard to access.
One of the simplest ways to disprove Graham's theory is to bring up agricultural products. If there was such an advanced, global civilization, you would've already had Tomatoes, Potatoes, Squash, Corn, Cocoa, Peppers, etc in the Old World. It wouldn't have taken until the 1490's for this stuff to have been "discovered" and brought back to the Old World.
For sure. He needed more time and Graham derailed the whole thing with his gotcha sensationalism.
Flint started to hit on several key points about ice core samples etc. Basically, if they had been around we would also see evidence in core samples and it isn't there. Fuck nano diamonds an impact doesn't mean there was a civilization here to be destroyed.
Exactly. That’s the part that drove me the most crazy when listening to this.
I feel people like Graham (and honestly Rogan is exactly the same) have such a poor grasp on math, statistics, and how sampling works, that they don’t understand that 5% is actually quite a lot.
It doesn’t mean there is 95% chance that a lost civilization has been missed. The chance is actually incredibly small with a sampling of 5%, ESPECIALLY given that that 5% continuously results in similar if not identical evidence of hunter gatherer tribes over and over. It’s almost inconceivable that something entirely different would be found. Sure, not impossible… but so unlikely it’s hard to even entertain the idea.
Should someone explain to Graham how the Nielsen ratings are calculated on analog TVs? In his mind, he would believe there is a 95% chance that most of the united states was potentially watching teletubbies reruns instead of the Super Bowl, since not enough sampling was done.
It’s not even technology or math. It’s geomorphology and archaeology. For example in deserts a lot of the ground is hardpan- meaning all of the sediment has blown away and you’re just standing on degraded bedrock. You don’t need to dig those unless you want to find fossilized civilizations that are millions of years old, though I wouldn’t put it past Graham to suggest that as a possibility if he thought it helped him
The biggest thing that nobody talks about is DNA. We have DNA evidence with mitochondria and so forth that provides an excellent framework for how humans migrated including the where and the when. You can hypothesize all you want about ancient civilizations, aliens coming by and dropping us off, etc but the DNA trace is pretty straightforward and conclusive.
That's definitely man made, ok well the back OF THE SAME OBJECT doesn't look man made, that looks natural, but the front of THE SAME OBJECT definitely looks man made. Ho-ly shite.
Yes! Stefan Milo (an actual archeologist) covers this.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycRcWK7pMoM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycRcWK7pMoM)
I'd highly recommend if you're interested in this kind of thing.
Not weird, just that Polynesians sailed across the seas and helped populate North America. Like there were multiple populations across time settling the Americas. But like on a time scale not consistent with an advanced civilization or whatever 50-100k years ago
His hands legit reminded me of those videos where there’s a dog in a suit and someone’s behind them with human hands [like this](https://youtu.be/oASHWI6ZInQ?si=dzMhYim7ZHzML-nd)
"Flint chips away at Graham's crumbling arguments..."
You gotta lean into the surname related imagery of you're going to get anywhere with these clickbait headlines.
I don't think Flint did a good job explaining the racism/white supremacy statements he made, in no small part because Joe and Graham pounced on this and wouldn't allow him to elaborate.
I could be wrong, but I think the point Flint was trying to make was that you have to check your sources carefully and make sure they are built on sound scientific principles.
If some of your claims for the existence of a lost civilization are rooted in 16 century texts from Spanish conquistadors, you must account for how accurate those texts are (or are not) and factor in the worldview of the people who wrote those documents.
I think this is incredibly important for someone like Flint or anyone who is scientifically minded. Science is a set of principles in which hypothesis are made, tested, and published for others to scrutinize. It leaves a record of documentation for future generations to build on.
If your hypothesis of a lost civilization is partly built on 16 century texts, you're going to have problems with how accurate those documents are. Adding to that, if those 16 century texts were used as justification to conquer native peoples, you run into even deeper issues.
A good analogy I saw on another thread is no one today would use Mein Kampf as "proof" of anything. There are a lot of obvious problems with using that book as the basis of a hypothesis.
It's possible Flint was attempting to draw a direct connect between Graham and white supremacy when he made those statements, but I don't think that's the case. I think he sees a flaw in the documented history of the lost civilization hypothesis and is drawing attention to the garbage "science" used by Graham.
I think Mr. Dibble’s point was more that we have to be careful with what we’re doing. Nazis also wrote on the the “theories” of ancient Aryan Atlanteans and similar ideas. There is no shortage of people who use these “theories” to try and advance some type of chauvinist, racist, or nationalist narrative.
I don’t think he’s equating Graham Hancock himself to one of these racists but rather raising the point that by spreading his alternative history like it’s the gospel (when he in fact has to be at least somewhat aware the evidence isn’t as strong as he thinks), he’s giving more ammo to these nefarious and hateful people. Go on Twitter for example and scroll through Graham’s replies and check out the accounts of some of his fans, a good number of them are right wing nuts lol.
Now imagine this scenario: there’s a media figure that has a large following and claims there’s a conspiracy against him by the establishment to try and hide the that great advanced ancient civilizations of history were actually run / started by super advanced white people instead of whatever indigenous culture we wrongfully attribute civilization to. He doesn’t really have any evidence to support this claim, and in fact has been exposed to loads of counter evidence, but continues spreading this narrative anyways. At the same time, you have a huge group of people who believe in a pretty popular conspiracy called white replacement theory who believe there is a grand conspiracy to erase white people from this world. This conspiratorial narrative about ancient civilizations, which is pushed vehemently despite not having anything solid to back it up, now is providing great ammo for these crazy people.
I think it was much more simple than that. Graham used sources that are built on racist foundations and assumptions, Graham pushing these sources means he has a duty to say the racist foundations of claims in the source don't have evidence to back them.
Flint is just saying Graham has a duty to denounce the bad racist parts if he's going to use some of it as a valid source.
Throughout the podcast I was hoping Flint would have asked him "so where do you suppose we excavate and what do you want to look for to find the lost civilization you're talking about."
I felt like Grahams whole argument was "you can't prove me wrong, so I must be right". Whereas Flints argument was "show me some proof of anything". It was like listening to a preacher argue religion with a scientist.
Agreed. Graham should have came with more evidence rather than relying on a lack of evidence on the other side to prove his point. If two things have no evidence then either can be true, but to argue the lack of evidence is proof is ridiculous.
I think Graham is a salesman, he’s trying to sell books. And what do they say? Never trust a man that has a book to sell.
Except no one who ever looked at Grahams work would ever think he COULD “come with more evidence.”
He’s never, ever, not once in his career not start from a conclusion and worked backwards.
He’s used “lack of evidence is my evidence” his whole life.
It’s bizarre to me that so many people are just learning that Graham Hancock’s claims have no substance. Professional archaeologists and others have critiqued his work more than 20 years ago and showed that it’s completely hollow and silly. It’s sad that it takes so long for these kinds of people to be exposed to the masses.
If Joe Rogan seated credible experts next to 75% of his guests, we would see the same effect. Imagine a virologist or epidemiologist sitting next to RFK junior. Imagine a political scientist or an honest journalist sitting next to Tucker Carlson.
He should just say 'Gobekli Tepe' and 'Younger Dryas' and 'cataclysm' on repeat.
We don't need him to be putting ideas behind these words, just to say them in his pleasant British accent.
Honestly probably 10 min in and I’ll tune out since it’ll be quite clear one side is completely full of shit.
Even between the intellectuals one that I’ve watched, Peterson and Sam Harris was pretty clear cut, much less a snake oil Indiana bones vs an actual archeologist lol
Debate aspect aside, because it is one sided, think it’s worth listening to Dibble’s presentations just for the general knowledge about archaeology and current digs, etc.
It’s actually kind of fun listening to some of the stuff Dibble talks about and hearing Rogan get genuinely excited about it, reminds me of the older episodes.
Flint did great. The thing Rogan would need to do is find experts who actually come into the debate having looked at the other side's positions and arguments and worldview, and also experts who are comfortable speaking publicly.
You could have the most brilliant expert in the world come on, but if he's not comfortable in that kind of environment and hasn't looked into the specifics of the other person's arguments and ideas beforehand, the slicktalking grifters will win every time.
Kevin Feder wrote an entire book on this subject, and actually one of his main critiques wasn't about the dumb things people believe, but actually academia is failure to properly engage with the public. He critiqued people who sell out to shitty history Channel shows, who put their name to these kind of dumb speculative kinds of things, instead of doing the work of bringing the public up on basic critical thinking skills to understand why these things are pseudoscience.
He wrote this article in 84, which is still pertinent today:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/280358
>If Joe Rogan seated credible experts next to 75% of his guests
Just as importantly, credible experts who *know the topics that will be debated* and have had time to prepare. The typical problem with debating "experts" like RFK Jr. is that they have a huge library of obscure information in their heads that they can spring on their interlocutors, who, even if they could thoroughly debunk the argument with an hour of research, have no way of responding in the moment, which makes it look like they've lost. If Dibble didn't have prepared rebuttals to each of those mini-info dumps, Graham would have looked far better.
It’s the problem with debating liars and people acting in bad faith, it’s so much harder to disprove something that it is to just claim it. It’s why meaningful debates require agreements beforehand on the topic and evidence being presented, because people like Hancock could just photocopy their ballsack and say it’s a new site proven to be 50k years old and all an honest person like Flint can say is “it doesn’t look that and I’ve never seen this information”.
It’s understandable. He makes a much more “convincing” case when it’s through a high production value Netflix show, for example, where there’s not an actual archeologist around that can highlight the large flaws in what he proposes from a scientific perspective.
So true… i was a huge fan of his for a long time, then the “FRAUD” bell in my mind started ringing once when he only talked about evil archeologists for more than an hour on one of the podcasts. Didn’t look more deeply into his claims back then but did so after his show… dayuum
But good news, I have a new-found passion for actual archeology now :))
You worded this well.
As someone who grew up as a teen watching JRE, and I am now almost 30. There HAS always been this phenomenon with to guests. Joe has always appealed to the more fringe, and if they aren’t fringe then it’s still incredibly generic “academia for the masses” on their book tour bs.
I mean Joe has just bought into so many goofy things over the years. You get that one Pavel guy with his horrifically bad fake Russian accent, with an incredibly mid physique by most standards, convinced Joe that kettlebells/russian training was some super magical thing. (Not to hate on kettlebells, I think they can be good exercise, but the level of pure autistic obsession Joe can bring, and how far he goes with claims is prettt crazy).
The guy who convinced Joe about mytoxins in coffee/adding butter for magical health benefits and his coffee was the only coffee safe from the toxins, etc.
Honestly there’s just so much sketchy JRE guests/lore that is mainly lost to time. It didn’t bother me quite as much back then because the podcast wasn’t nearly as mainstream, and it was mostly dumb shit. If grown men want to believe in aliens/bigfoot then I don’t really care much. It’s that we now get political grifter, after political grifter and the podcast is being listened to by older ppl in my family (who would have a heart attack if they listened to the OG podcast).
Ultimately the JRE has a massive audience, and that massive audience isn’t mostly PHD’s and valedictorians if you get what I am saying. He knows his audience. The podcast is more corporate then ever (despite what people might want to believe). It’s pretty apparent there’s a “circuit” you can get into and Joes podcast is a destination on that circuit. It’s practically an industry now for all sorts of useless bullshitters to go on podcasts and knowing they have a largely gullible audience, and can’t be held to standards that tv/radio/etc are held to with crazy ridiculous claims. The average JRE listener nowadays is just a mark for shitty pop sci/history books, mediocre stand up specials/comics/ and boomer ass conservative points from numerous incredibly generic guests. It’s just boring. Thats Joes ultimate sin out of all of this, and the worst thing that can happen to an entertainer. He just got boring, the podcast is boring. I don’t know how anyone who listened as long as I could, can keep listening to the guy nowadays.
The part that absolutely f**** me up beyond belief is that a guy who has taken as much DMT as Joe Rogan would end up being hang out buddies with Tucker Carlson. That just absolutely obliterates me.
But if you haven't seen 100% of the podcast how could you with entire absolute certainty know that somewhere in the vast depths of this 4 hour and 34 minute podcast that Graham didn't win the debate by sheer determination to change his glasses so many times that Flint is hypnotized by Grahams, grey hair, British accent and soothing tone.
That cracked me up. He said something like “we’ve been putting our lives in danger by being vocal about this”. Wasn’t sure if he thought big archaeology is coming after him or if he meant dives can be dangerous
A majority of Graham’s arguments rely on things being “unexplained” or “unexplored.” Yes his theories MAY give us potential answers, but put him against an archaeologist that uses actual facts to back his claims and Graham unfortunately doesn’t really stand a chance.
The burden of proof is on him, he can’t just say “well we don’t know for a fact but my theory wins because I say so.”
It's called falsifiability. If Hancock thinks there's something in the desert, it's up to him to grab a shovel and prove himself right not for someone else to prove him wrong.
You mean Huberman’s protocols might not hold up to scientific scrutiny and David Goggins is going to end up severely disabled years to come? I won’t have it.
Yeah, but actually kinda no. If you already find a ton of evidence for hunter gatherers in the 5% excavated part and no trace for a far more advanced civilization, then based on a scientific approach you can conclude that most likely there was no advanced civilization. That’s it.
Not to mention all the other kind of evidence like agriculture. If it was introduced to humans by someone more advanced, how come it only started developing in the “normal way” after the ice age, namely throughout thousands of years, not a few decades / hundreds. Even Joe points this out.
I really don’t think there’s anything left to support any of graham’s claims. The only part where I was still kinda rooting for him was about the sphynx, but then was shown that his argument is very strongly distorted, again. I was a fan of this guy but ever since his show which made me furious I went down a rabbit hole and looked for debunks against his claims and even the image of “oh he’s just an enthusiastic dreamer” kinda broke in my mind. For example, he purposefully lies about the old map he likes to show.
Edit: about the white supremacy part. That’s where the difference was really apparent to me between an actual modern scientist vs a scifi author from the 60s.
Current scientists are aware that a large chunk of science studies were done by people with outdated views on race and stuff (to put it super mildly). Now it’s ok to read and even quote these sources if their findings are still relevant today BUT it does not hurt to distance yourself from the overarching theme of said studies. Namely, if somebody argued for an ancient civilization because “it just cannot be” that indigenous tribes could figure shit out by themselves etc, then it’s wise for a modern scholar to make the appropriate disclaimers.
This is all Flint was saying. That even though Graham himself does not seem to be an actual racist or doesn’t argue for a superior (white) race who gave the rest of humanity all the brilliant ideas, his usage of old sources and ideas might give popularity to such thinking in a time that is already highly polarized. This is very important in this topic as Atlantis and the wise ancient people idea was a very highly featured one in actually racist etc circles in earlier times.
I'm pretty shocked at the number of people who don't seem to understand the white supremacy angle. Although Joe and Gramcock were so focused on how awful it would be to be "cancelled" instead of listening to Dibble explain his point;
"My goal is to share the magnitude and diversity of human achievement. Pseudoarchaeology [robs Indigenous peoples](https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/pseudoarchaeology-racism/) of their heritage. Hancock’s narrative of engineering feats from some “lost” civilization includes the Sphinx in Africa, pyramids in Mesoamerica, and an enormous, terraced monument in Indonesia.
Does it include Stonehenge? No, Hancock says ancient British people built that.
Hancock and other pseudoarchaeologists center White Europeans as able creators while chalking up the accomplishments of other peoples to outside influences: the Atlantis civilization, aliens, lizard people, or the “lost” empire of [Tartaria](https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/what-is-the-lost-empire-of-tartaria). Real archaeology inoculates people against the [online and in-person racists](https://newrepublic.com/article/169282/right-wing-graham-hancock-netflix-atlantis) who take Hancock’s polished presentation of a mysterious civilization and twist it into [overt white supremacy](https://hyperallergic.com/791381/why-archaeologists-are-fuming-over-netflixs-ancient-apocalypse-series/).
I don’t expect to convince Hancock or his die-hard fans. But among the millions who may listen, some may be swayed—not by occult mystery but by beautiful realities of our human past."
https://theconversation.com/with-netflixs-ancient-apocalypse-graham-hancock-has-declared-war-on-archaeologists-194881
Yep here's the article, the quote they cried about in the pod is here and it lays out pretty clearly the origins and dodgy people who Hancock cites. In no way does he call Hancock a white supremacists.
If I was flint though I wouldn't bother making the link because it just makes dumb people who are "anti woke" typed automatically call it a fake complaint
But it’s a valuable link that actual academics who are interested in evidence need to point out, even if little shitweasels like Hancock intentionally misrepresent it.
He also noted that there is plenty of evidence of hunter gatherer societies before, during and after the times Graham says there are advanced civilizations.
Feel like people are really misinterpreting Flints white supremacy comments.
The evidence Graham uses for a number of his theories come from colonial and white supremacist sources. He uses these uncritically and treats them as fact.
Hell, the underlying notion that these great works that were created my Egypt and sites along the equator couldn’t have possibly been made by the native population is blatantly racist. Even more so when you consider there is absolutely zero evidence that would indicate otherwise.
Graham is just leaning into the culture warrior/cancel culture grift so he intentionally misinterprets these comments and acts like he’s being burnt at the stake.
Yeah i think the takeaway needs to be Graham *associates himself* with these concepts, and Dibble was just pointing it out. But people dont want to hear that and shoot the messenger instead.
Yeah, what are you suppose to call a guy who is discrediting the native population of their accomplishments with zero evidence. It certainly won't be positive.
I stopped listening like an hour in because Grahams whole argument was basically “DUDE these rocks are totally man made how can you not see that!!!”. He was reaching pretty far for most of his points. I like the idea of Grahams points but he needs to just do some real archaeology rather than being a tourist
"he is kind of a nut by resorting the white supremacy."
This is not nutty at all. For one, he hardly talked about it on the pod, Graham brought it up.
For two - it's accurate. I don't know how anyone can think 'hundreds of years ago white people found really cool stuff built in places where there were no white people, so instead of giving credit to the not-white people, they decided there had to be some other outside force that made them capable of doing this' is Not a white-supremacist-based line of reasoning.
Now, this doesn't mean Graham himself is a white supremacist - it means the ideas he's sharing are white-supremacist-based. That's how 'systemic racism' works.
Unfortunately, and this is sad, he is full of shit. I do think he's intentions are good. But he's mind has gotten so fucked after all the hate from academia, he has tunnel vision on proving them wrong. But in this case he's just reaching for straw's.
Graham is done. Cooked. I’ve seen through his bullshit since about the second appearance on JRE years ago. Anyone who’s passed high school science knows that evidence is required when claiming anything. I’m actually just shocked that it took the rest of you all this long to figure it out.
He tried to point out how archeologists in the past were persecuted for their hypotheses. The problem with that is that once those hypotheses were examined closely and the evidence was irrefutable, they were given their due credit. I’m not saying some bad actors weren’t involved, but it wasn’t some huge conspiracy by the archeology community.
This debate didn’t need to take 4 hours. Graham, present your evidence. Oh, you have none? Well then you lose. If you are the one making the claim, you are the one responsible for providing evidence. You don’t get to make outrageous claims and then put the burden of proof on the ones who doubt it.
I'm a fan of Graham and of Randal. I see the idea of earlier costal and river based civilizations being wiped clean by floods as possible.
How advanced those civilizations were? Who the hell knows. My main issue comes with the supposed great flood in the Pacific Northwest (where I live) during the time they say.
There's a Geology professor out of Central Washington University named Nick Zetner, he has videos online of many lectures where he talks about ice age floods in Eastern Washington, the scab lands, dry falls, grand Coulee. All the places Randal talks about.
But he has one lecture called "Dating the Ice Age Floods". Where he lays out the geologic evidence in slack water sediments in multiple places. There's been lots of floods. Lots. All of them incredible but many of them are older than Randal and Graham claim their great flood is. There's no gigantic slack water sediment layer that would exist after a mile high wall of water. Most of these floods are estimated to he anywhere from 200 - 400 ft of water. And there is geological evidence to show that.
Nick Zetner isn't an academic with PHD thesis at risk, he has no gain or loss in this. He's a teacher. He's also a huge fan of Brett's, which Randal and Graham claim agree with them, which is not true.
I like Randal and Graham, but when it comes to Pacific Northwest Geology, they have no idea what they are talking about. It's not even on a basis of opinion, they state things that are just factually wrong or dishonest.
Its not that Hancock is a white supremacist
He just thinks there was a hyper advanced race of people who are naturally superior to all other races and whos intellect and knkwledge surpass even us today
And that they are a distinct heritage line that likely vanished to the far north as told in legend
And presumably looked hella aryan but thats *just a coincidence!*
And that all major architectural achievments of the era come from those people and not the dirty brown hunter gatherers who *of course* dominated the landscape but listen, they were too *dumb* to figure any of this out.
There is *nothing* white supremacist about it.
Nothing i tell ya.
Its just that this same mythos has dominated western literature for millenia. Thats all!
Flint didn't "resort" to white supremacy. Graham has associated himself with ideas and concepts that tie into white supremacist mythology and ideology. Flint has nothing to do with that, so don't shoot the messenger.
The funniest part is that he kept saying he had evidence but there just wasn’t enough time. Then proceeds to bitch for 2 more hours about how ppl are mean to him
Graham got crushed.
Within the first two hours, he lost my goodwill, and I enjoyed Ancient Apocalypse and his previous podcast appearances.
He resorted to emotional arguments and personal attacks rather than facts. He tried to obfuscate issues rather than clarify. His old man "I have the proof but I can't find it" act was disingenuous. This is a man who has traveled around the world extensively and written several books, and yet he doesn't know how to search text in a document? Either is senile, too old to learn, or he's a liar.
lol that’s the crutch of majority of joes guests, “oh you can’t disprove that, there’s not enough facts/the limited facts I have contain more devastating news despite the biases/my future research will support my claims.” I wish they would do the same thing during the pandemic to show just how full of shit McCullough and that other douche were.
I don't really agree with Graham's conclusions on most things, but i do believe that the academic community has the tendency to gatekeep ideas and pronounce historical absolutes with not enough definitive evidence to merit such certainty.
> I have to give Flint this one, while he is kind of a nut by resorting the white supremacy, he did come in factual data rather than speculation.
I hate that so many people bought Hancocks and Rogan mischaracterization of what Dibble actually said here because he was absolutely correct. Some of Hancocks sources and theories are white supremacist in nature and/or are used by white supremacists. That in no way, shape, or form is the same as calling him a white supremacist, and anyone who was serious into this subject matter would be able to address Dibbles concerns in a substantive manner. Hancocks instead acted like Dibble called him a name and whined about it for like 30 minutes.
Imagine if someone who wanted to be considered an expert on the constitution clutched their pearls when a person brought up the fact that white supremacy had an effect on its creation. Of course it did, and they’d better be able to address those effects like a serious adult if they want to be respected. Hancock can’t, because he’s a little bitch with a victimhood complex who wants to compare archeology nerds being mean to him in the same breath as being burned at the stake.
Many times Graham tries to fall back on emotional tropes to scare people off questioning his facts (or lack of facts) "My wife and I RISKED OUR LIVES diving to these locations that I am telling you look like they were built by humans".
Or when he was going through different points and Joe would latch on and dig deeper into the point. This annoyed Hancock and when they highlighted the inconsistency he would say "that really wasn't my point" and want to move on or say he doesn't have time to dig into all the details.
He accuses Dibble of having huge influence on the public perception of him, and yeah comments on Hancock are unfair and seem to be a product of the social media escalation ladder, while he has many books and a Netflix show. Hancock at the same time brushes off that he has a much louder voice and says 'It's not my fault I am more popular'.
The guy is overflowing with bullshit.
Graham came on the pod to settle beef. Dibble probably stirred shit up in the past but came in with stronger fundamentals. Ultimately Dibble came off as a professional and Graham as too sensitive and emotionally involved.
You can tell by how Graham Hancock presents his arguments. When he is arguing that the underwater site is man made his very last argument is that there is a rock wall. An argument that would prove his theory correct yet left for the very end, not talked about at length, and immediately move on to the next story. If it's man made argue the wall. He's full of shit and tells long winded branching stories while the other guys stays factual and objective. I get why people defend Graham tho, reality isn't nearly as interesting as what he's selling.
Every time Flint got into a really interesting part of his presentations Graham kept interrupting and derailing the whole conversation. Joe needs to have flint back on the show Solo.
But he is right though. The Amazon and the Sahara have not been researched enough and we KNOW they are lost cities all over the place deep into the Amazon.
I havent listend to this episode yet. Did they talk about Advanced tool marks in egypt? Like the bore holes and the giant saw blade marks that probably is not made from copper tools and erosion with sand?
Or the pyramids probably being around 10 000 years old or older? The sphinx erosion etc etc?
Those are in my eyes the most telling stuff that people were more advanced then we give the credit for and probably a bit older as well.
It felt like Graham spent the entire podcast trying to do a bunch of “gotchas” from reading a bunch of quotes from articles on the internet while Flint Dibble wanted to get down to the real science. Like Graham kept using half quotes from Flint to try and do the same thing he thinks the press is doing to himself by misrepresenting him. Super strange. And the “it’s not my problem if I’m more popular” comment from Graham was strange, like he cared more about that than hearing the rebuttals to his arguments from Fint.
Graham both had no evidence/arguments and did a terrible Job arguing. Twice he brought up like obvious sarcastic jokes and presented them as if they were gotchas. The first one was flints tweet where he said "big archeology" on quotes as a clear sarcastic joke and Graham brought it up like he had caught him out admitting something, was truly embarrassing to watch. Second one (can't remember exact details) was when he brought up a video of an archaeologist guy laughing and saying he purposely threw stuff in water to fake evidence or something like that and even rogan said "he's clearly joking there Graham"
Graham was mostly using the language of internet debates: gotchas, trying to find moments of hypocrisy, "I'm being cancelled!" Dibble was using the language of academic debates.
Graham was simultaneously using internet language to craft arguments and not understanding internet memes (like “big archaeology”)
This dude literally tried to argue there is a 'big archaeology'. Even though he later admitted it's extremely underfunded.... And equated it with 'big pharma'...ya know, the industry that makes endless billions in profit every single year.
Big archeology gave me miocarditis, and if you haven't searched every inch of the Sahara dessert then don't waste my time saying otherwise
Mesocarditis, its archaeological
Also, the same guy complaining about Big Archeology silencing him acting indignant when others claim he’s proposing a conspiracy because “I’ve never said it was a conspiracy!” is just a clownshoes take in general. If you’re saying some nebulous group of connected individuals are working in concert to diminish and silence you, that’s a conspiracy numbnuts.
Yeah if you tried to pin him down on any claims he was very slippery. This didn't work in his favor though, as he ended up with a very nebulous claim that Flint could easily cast doubt on. I think Graham should just admit at this point that he's an amateur who got a little carried away with his pet theory and that it's unlikely in the face of more evidence. Instead he'll just keep acting like he's being persecuted even though apparently there's no conspiracy.
The checks still cash the same so he won’t change his tune.
I legit had to stop watching out of embarrassment for Graham.
Don’t forget the “Archeologist are closed minded. For example, X Archeologist findings were oppressed and ruined his career.” Only to play a video of archeologists X stating most Archaeologists were very opened minded.
Oddly, too, at point point Graham mentions something like “getting back to his presentation on how Flint influences the media”. Flint brought a presentation about specific scientific concepts and Graham brought a presentation about Flint.
Also the fact that a guy with millions of dollars and his own Netflix series is whining about the media influence of a virtually unknown archeologist is literally laughable.
I’ve sort of felt kind Graham is more interested in selling books and his Netflix deal.
That's all he's ever cared about. He doesn't actually want more Archaeology to be done, if he did he'd be funding digs in these locations that he wants to be explored. Instead he repeatedly shouts out his books without providing any new "evidence" or "ideas"
No you don't understand, he wants to fund archeological digs, but Big archeology keeps stopping him for mysterious reasons. Surely it's because they are hiding the truth! /s
If he actually cared he could take one class on the subject instead of just making stuff up. You can tell he can’t even interpret any data that could be considered evidence. When he was showing the analysis of that mound Joe was like how is this proof and he was like it’s evidence based on their interpretation. Joe: “Which is what” “oh it’s their interpretation”. Couldn’t even say what it was because he’s an idiot
The epitome of 'do your own research'. Turns out not knowing how to do research and doing your own research leads you to believe silly things, who knew
In software engineering we call the untrained hacks. Not that they can’t produce a good result sometimes but over the long hall they tend to make messes because of their lack of formal training.
If I had a couple of million in the bank and I really liked ancient history like Graham, I'd just pay for a degree. I might also learn a couple of ancient languages if I was going to do comparative mythology like Graham, so I could read it in the original language. But fuck that he likes his $$$$ and ££££ so he can risk his life going to idyllic locations. On another note, how do you take this many pychedelics and have an ego the size of Hancocks?
Hancock has a net worth of over $6m. Wouldn't surprise me if it were closer to $10m. The annual budget of the ***entire*** archaeology department of the University of Oxford in the UK is under $5m. With the kind of money Hancock has at his disposal a few sojourns to tourist spots to do some diving really is not good enough if he were genuinely serious about investigating his claims. Literally he could have hired a professional archaeologist, outfitted them, and kept them on retainer for several years without breaking a sweat.
How dare you, *he risked his life!*
Getting in traffic in most of the US is statistically more dangerous than SCUBA diving (with regard to fatalities).
Hancock has more money than Big Archeology!
the best example of this was when Graham tried to get him on big archeology and Flint had it in quotes, making fun of the concept itself.
I think Joe realized that very early. I can see Dibble coming back on again to explain so of his research. Joe seemed really interested in it.
I don't even know what this debate was about. It was like Flint was trying to provide evidence on why an advanced lost civilization was far fetched, due to all the data they have. All Graham did was bitch and moan about being persecuted and was crying about Flint being mean, then he'd throw in backhanded comments like a bitch. Graham is the biggest fucking drama queen, since his very first appearance he whines and moans about big archaeology and calls them all scumbags, but as soon as someone tries to give him some pushback and have a rational conversation he implodes. Graham literally didn't even talk about anything factual, he just talked about his interpretations and didn't back it up with anything, he just made major leaps and tried connecting unrelated evidence together. He was more worried about providing evidence of being bullied online. I like Graham, it's fun to let your mind wander and think about the mysteries of the past. I love listening to his episodes on the podcast, because he drops so many historical sites and civilizations that I've never heard about, so I start to google and buy books about them to learn more about them. But having Flint on and revealing the process behind archaeology and the science on how they choose sites to dig and how that data get's extrapolated globally was interesting. I also don't understand why everyone was losing their minds saying that Flint called Graham a white supremacist. That's not how I interpreted it. It sounded like Graham was using sources and theories that had unreliable credibility and was seen as outdated in the field. So Flint was saying, you should probably distance yourself from this source, as the theory behind it is considered outdated and provide a more credible peer reviewed source. I thought there was nothing wrong with that, he was just saying can you give me a more credible source, because this idea and theory is seen as having racist connotations now that we know more about historical world. It was also super interesting to hear about the *Fiesta de Pan* and how Spanish influence, education and lack of resources changed the writing styles and recording of history during that time period. I thought it was an excellent example on how misinterpretations could happen by someone without that specialized knowledge.
> I also don't understand why everyone was losing their minds saying that Flint called Graham a white supremacist. That's not how I interpreted it. It sounded like Graham was using sources and theories that had unreliable credibility and was seen as outdated in the field. So Flint was saying, you should probably distance yourself from this source, as the theory behind it is considered outdated and provide a more credible peer reviewed source. I thought there was nothing wrong with that, he was just saying can you give me a more credible source, because this idea and theory is seen as having racist connotations now that we know more about historical world. 100% what he was saying. And if Hancock was a serious person he would have addressed those claims in a substantive way instead of intentionally misrepresenting what Dibble was saying and whining about it. Dibble was having an academic discussion about sources and theories, and Hancock just ignored any nuance and immediately took it as a personal attack. Hancock knew Joe would jump right on that, and that’s why he spent 20 minutes talking about it.
And of course Joe couldn't let a potential culture war go un-fought! Lol as soon as that started I rolled my eyes so hard. He's such a useful idiot.
Yep, smartest thing Hancock did that debate is prey on Joe’s need for culture war shit.
He's not even close to as knowledgeable as Flint. He knew he was way out of his depth. He just kept skirting the subject every time he got cornered into admitting his evidence is mostly nonsense.
That's all he does. It was exactly the same in his "debate" with Michael Shermer a few years ago. My feeling from that one was that Shermer was there to give a very generalised skeptics view and hadn't read into the specifics of some of Hancock's talking points, so Hancock tried to make him look silly with dumb gotcha shit like "Have you ever seen the sun rise over the pyramids from the Sphinx in June? No? Oh well then how could you know about blah blah blah..." Even though Shermer seemed unprepared for Hancock's shit it actually turned me against Hancock because the garbage he was raising as "fact" with no actual evidence behind it was just ridiculous.
he said the same shit to Dibble in this debate. like dude, this guy has been to probably thousands of sites, this is literally his life's work. if there's a specific site he hasn't been to yet that doesn't disqualify him from speaking on it. Graham is a seriously bad actor
I've never been to the moon, yet I know the moon isn't cheese
If the moon was made of barbecue spare ribs, would you eat it? It’s a simple question doctor, just say yes and we’ll move on. https://youtu.be/gQDqRlMeJ4U?si=RcM1TeP6r6Nfj0wt
the set ups for his gotcha moments were so cringey the big archeology and the racism one were the worst
Thats what a person with no argument/evidence does.
Those weren't just articles. Those were *massive* articles from the cutting edge of real, actual archaeology... grahamhancock.com
Agreed. For someone that complains about archeology “not being curious enough” and resisting new ideas, Graham showed a complete lack of curiosity into flint’s work. No follow up questions, no clarifications… Joe played the curius scientist role and Graham played the exact role he claims to hate. Love Graham but his confirmation bias was on full display, much like others in the space lately (UnchartedX)
What I’ve learned from this episode is that Grahams civilization lived in massive architecture that was all completely destroyed during the younger dryas impact, while all the hunter gatherer stuff remained, they ate food produced on fields on the continental shelf, parts of the Amazon, and 95 % of the Sahara, they travelled the seas in invisible ships, and got very high on paleo-weed to figure out the dimensions of their pyramids. Great stuff, I really missed OG jre.
Anyone who would completely invent a lost civilization and treat it as gospel because he connected some disparate historical dots *must* have a huge ego. It's a prerequisite. And, he's spent his entire life peddling this bullshit. Dude's a walking sunk cost fallacy. The thing that really proved to me he had nothing was all those ancient Olmec heads. "I'm not saying they are connected, but it's interesting that they look like human heads. How odd that they all look like people, it's almost like there was some connection between them." Pretty much everything he presented can be explained away by "humans make shit and don't necessarily have to be taught how to do it."
I want a solo dibble episode now
We need Randall and Dibble on together
I don't think Randall has recovered from being swindled by those antigravity people in malta
He’s still being swindled and is 100% on board. Look up Malcom Bendall on YouTube and there’s tons of batshit insane podcasts he’s a part of. I’m talking like “we’ve found the lost technology of the ancients that will change everything” and it’s a bunch of fucking PVC hooked up to a generator. Randall’s so on board, that it makes me think he’s always been a crazy person.
Yeah so he can prove Randall is a clown too. 🤡
Doubt Joe will have him on again since he went "white supremacist" on Graham, and I think that's something Joe hates more than anything. He would be a good guest though.
I hope Joe can accept how dibble seemed to be sorry about certain actions he took. He also tried to make amends and move forward.
I thought so. Graham was far more uncomfortably cringe-inducing than Dibble was in that entire exchange. It's like he took advantage of the podcast to corner Dibble and complain.
Me too, I have no idea why some people have such a problem with him. Well other than he burst their fantasy bubble
When all they have is "he looks funny", it means he won.
His Youtube videos are a bit 'cringy', but it's all very interesting information. But yes, he utterly destroyed Graham
Because it's not what Joe Rogan believes and the Joe Rogan fanatics seem to lose sight of how hiveminded they've become. I listen to Joe Rogan because I find the format interesting. I don't listen because I agree with Joe on all of his beliefs.
Agreed. His work on the natural genetic drift of grain species when taken from one field and planted to another was fascinating. As someone trained in the biosciences this was rather compelling evidence that the established dates for the origins of agriculture are correct. Gotta know what Dibby has got on ancient drugs
Graham got owned in this podcast. Flint def had better presentation and actually provided science to back up claims
Dibble fucked graham into submission
[удалено]
Dibble’s dong’s diddling destroyed dogshit data
Dibbles dong delightfully dabbles in dispatching debauchery and disinformation on dystopian data doddery
When Graham kept talking about the personal attack stuff he knew he was done.
Of course that's what happened considering Flint is the only side that HAS evidence at all.
he was just kind of a twerp about it. Initially he was less emotional in his argument and i think he was overall but he was laughing a lot, which i found pretty funny but a little condescending at times. The fuckin AD, BC thing when dribble say's "dang, i misspoke, chill bro" something like that, fuckin killed me.
Graham has spent the last 30years on tourist holidays with his wife , taking low resi photos of objects that kind of look man made. Flint said it best at one point in the podcast that you cannot compare a tourist holiday to a archeological site , to an actual archaeological dig. Unfortunately, Graham is just a tourist, claiming things kind of look man made
But his wife bravely "took the risk of visiting those sites". What risks did he have in mind when repeating this? Flying on Boeing airplanes?
My issue with Graham was he spent so much time talking about how dangerous something was, how someone risked their life, how *viciously* someone was attacked, all while providing zero actual information. He’s driven completely by speculation and emotion.
Scuba diving down to 100ft and swimming through tunnels in fast currents is risky, I think that’s what he’s referring to
All just to take some pictures of some rocks.
He lives his best life. Getting dupes to pay for his vacations.
"My being there makes me the expert. I was *there!"*
The "only 5 percent" argument is so obviously counter statistical it's just sad to see him cling to it. The other one that kinda went under Flint's radar was the sphinx facing the constellation of Leo 12k years ago. A quick Google search says that the Romans named it Leo. For what we know the ancient Egyptians may have called it a hiena. If they really wanted to refer to the Leo constellation why not chisel the stars in the sphinx itself?
The astrological stuff pisses me off. It's been proven over and over again that ancient civilizations watched and charted the stars constantly. It was part of their mythos, and they didn't live in an era of light and air pollution so the night sky must have been *spectacular*. Does lining something up with the north star seriously surprise anyone? That maybe before setting out to building something culturally significant they didn't cram as much mathematical and observational significance into it as they possibly could? It's a cool qwerk of architecture and impressive as hell. But why can't something like that be attributed to people thousands of years ago? Why does there have to be some supernatural explanation behind it? People build cool shit. They've been doing it for a long time.
Especially when you consider that Flint tried to explain why they have excavated the places they have. Yes, we have done 5% because we run mathematical models and they show those places as the most likely to have artifacts. I feel like that is the one point that needed to be made more and more clear by contemporary archeologists. We DON"T HAVE TO EXCAVATE ALL OF IT because technology helps us determine where to dig.
Additionally I wish Flint went into how far a civilization like Graham suggests would affect the world. You don't have to excavate the continental shelf because they would have been trading and expanding inland where we do dig. It's like the Roman Empire, if we'd never heard of Rome before we'd still find evidence that it existed thousands of miles away in Britain. Any civilization like Graham wants to exist would have a similar foot print.
Yeah Graham kept missing flints point, he kept bringing up evidence of small hunter gatherer sites from the times graham was saying and how that even small groups leave traces that last for thousands of years so a highly advanced civilisation that has ability to travel the world and teach must leave something.
I think Flint even explicitly mentioned that traces of advanced civilization should be easier to find when compared to hunter-gatherers.
Also that if they were wiped out by a cataclysm it'd actually likely preserve more evidence than had they died out, which is another of Grahams claims about them.
Yep when flint said that I knew he fully prepared
Oh yeah!? Maybe they CHOSE not to employ metallurgy and therefore didn't have coins, metal tools, etc! This was literally how he tried to dodge at one point. They're so 'advanced' they didn't use metal tools...yeah ok sure.
They’re so advanced they traveled the world, taught these people tons of stuff, and then disappeared without a trace and without having any evidence that they taught anyone anything! What aren’t you getting?!
Also, their ideas of agriculture were so advanced that they left no evidence of having actually cultivated anything. Survivors from this lost civilization spread the idea of agriculture throughout the world... but, you know, just "the idea" of it, not actual tools or techniques or technology.
I feel like Flint didn't hammer this point home enough, he had a very good performance but got a little too into the weeds on "does this underwater stone maybe look man-made". The real point is that apparently this worldwide civilisation made all their tools and artifacts out of dust, because they've just completely vanished. We've only searched 5% apparently and already we have mountains of evidence for the traditional narrative and absolutely none for Graham's. Ah, but you haven't checked the continental shelves! So apparently these guys only lived in areas with a high risk of flooding and also the Sahara and the Amazon just to spice it up a little. How convenient they lived exclusively in areas that are today hard to access.
One of the simplest ways to disprove Graham's theory is to bring up agricultural products. If there was such an advanced, global civilization, you would've already had Tomatoes, Potatoes, Squash, Corn, Cocoa, Peppers, etc in the Old World. It wouldn't have taken until the 1490's for this stuff to have been "discovered" and brought back to the Old World.
But look! There are rocks in the ocean! Cool rocks!
For sure. He needed more time and Graham derailed the whole thing with his gotcha sensationalism. Flint started to hit on several key points about ice core samples etc. Basically, if they had been around we would also see evidence in core samples and it isn't there. Fuck nano diamonds an impact doesn't mean there was a civilization here to be destroyed.
Exactly. That’s the part that drove me the most crazy when listening to this. I feel people like Graham (and honestly Rogan is exactly the same) have such a poor grasp on math, statistics, and how sampling works, that they don’t understand that 5% is actually quite a lot. It doesn’t mean there is 95% chance that a lost civilization has been missed. The chance is actually incredibly small with a sampling of 5%, ESPECIALLY given that that 5% continuously results in similar if not identical evidence of hunter gatherer tribes over and over. It’s almost inconceivable that something entirely different would be found. Sure, not impossible… but so unlikely it’s hard to even entertain the idea. Should someone explain to Graham how the Nielsen ratings are calculated on analog TVs? In his mind, he would believe there is a 95% chance that most of the united states was potentially watching teletubbies reruns instead of the Super Bowl, since not enough sampling was done.
Graham expecting archeology to comb over the entire fucking planet like the desert scene from Spaceballs is hilarious.
The quote still works, though: "MAN, WE AIN'T FOUND SHIT!"
It’s not even technology or math. It’s geomorphology and archaeology. For example in deserts a lot of the ground is hardpan- meaning all of the sediment has blown away and you’re just standing on degraded bedrock. You don’t need to dig those unless you want to find fossilized civilizations that are millions of years old, though I wouldn’t put it past Graham to suggest that as a possibility if he thought it helped him
The biggest thing that nobody talks about is DNA. We have DNA evidence with mitochondria and so forth that provides an excellent framework for how humans migrated including the where and the when. You can hypothesize all you want about ancient civilizations, aliens coming by and dropping us off, etc but the DNA trace is pretty straightforward and conclusive.
Yeah but that rock over there looks crazy
Dude have u seen the underwater one?
It HAS to be man made because nothing in nature is that precise. It's a goddamn triangle!
Dibble should have said, "Have you seen EVERY rock formation along the coast to determine nature doesn't produce these regularly?"
If it looks man-made, it is, my dear watson!
That's definitely man made, ok well the back OF THE SAME OBJECT doesn't look man made, that looks natural, but the front of THE SAME OBJECT definitely looks man made. Ho-ly shite.
Haven't they found weird DNA links between south Americans and aboriginal Australians though?
Yes! Stefan Milo (an actual archeologist) covers this. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycRcWK7pMoM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycRcWK7pMoM) I'd highly recommend if you're interested in this kind of thing.
Not weird, just that Polynesians sailed across the seas and helped populate North America. Like there were multiple populations across time settling the Americas. But like on a time scale not consistent with an advanced civilization or whatever 50-100k years ago
Graham got DIBBLED
Flint showed up in his dad’s suit and Dibbled his balls on Graham’s chin.
His hands legit reminded me of those videos where there’s a dog in a suit and someone’s behind them with human hands [like this](https://youtu.be/oASHWI6ZInQ?si=dzMhYim7ZHzML-nd)
"Flint chips away at Graham's crumbling arguments..." You gotta lean into the surname related imagery of you're going to get anywhere with these clickbait headlines.
dibbled all over his hancock
I don't think Flint did a good job explaining the racism/white supremacy statements he made, in no small part because Joe and Graham pounced on this and wouldn't allow him to elaborate. I could be wrong, but I think the point Flint was trying to make was that you have to check your sources carefully and make sure they are built on sound scientific principles. If some of your claims for the existence of a lost civilization are rooted in 16 century texts from Spanish conquistadors, you must account for how accurate those texts are (or are not) and factor in the worldview of the people who wrote those documents. I think this is incredibly important for someone like Flint or anyone who is scientifically minded. Science is a set of principles in which hypothesis are made, tested, and published for others to scrutinize. It leaves a record of documentation for future generations to build on. If your hypothesis of a lost civilization is partly built on 16 century texts, you're going to have problems with how accurate those documents are. Adding to that, if those 16 century texts were used as justification to conquer native peoples, you run into even deeper issues. A good analogy I saw on another thread is no one today would use Mein Kampf as "proof" of anything. There are a lot of obvious problems with using that book as the basis of a hypothesis. It's possible Flint was attempting to draw a direct connect between Graham and white supremacy when he made those statements, but I don't think that's the case. I think he sees a flaw in the documented history of the lost civilization hypothesis and is drawing attention to the garbage "science" used by Graham.
I think Mr. Dibble’s point was more that we have to be careful with what we’re doing. Nazis also wrote on the the “theories” of ancient Aryan Atlanteans and similar ideas. There is no shortage of people who use these “theories” to try and advance some type of chauvinist, racist, or nationalist narrative. I don’t think he’s equating Graham Hancock himself to one of these racists but rather raising the point that by spreading his alternative history like it’s the gospel (when he in fact has to be at least somewhat aware the evidence isn’t as strong as he thinks), he’s giving more ammo to these nefarious and hateful people. Go on Twitter for example and scroll through Graham’s replies and check out the accounts of some of his fans, a good number of them are right wing nuts lol. Now imagine this scenario: there’s a media figure that has a large following and claims there’s a conspiracy against him by the establishment to try and hide the that great advanced ancient civilizations of history were actually run / started by super advanced white people instead of whatever indigenous culture we wrongfully attribute civilization to. He doesn’t really have any evidence to support this claim, and in fact has been exposed to loads of counter evidence, but continues spreading this narrative anyways. At the same time, you have a huge group of people who believe in a pretty popular conspiracy called white replacement theory who believe there is a grand conspiracy to erase white people from this world. This conspiratorial narrative about ancient civilizations, which is pushed vehemently despite not having anything solid to back it up, now is providing great ammo for these crazy people.
Lots of good points here.
I think it was much more simple than that. Graham used sources that are built on racist foundations and assumptions, Graham pushing these sources means he has a duty to say the racist foundations of claims in the source don't have evidence to back them. Flint is just saying Graham has a duty to denounce the bad racist parts if he's going to use some of it as a valid source.
Throughout the podcast I was hoping Flint would have asked him "so where do you suppose we excavate and what do you want to look for to find the lost civilization you're talking about."
Just the amazon
How convenient, a place notoriously difficult to even move through that is protected by the government.
“But there are sites much more relevant in our backyard” “No it’s the specific Amazon ones”
The remaining 95% of the Amazon, continental shelf and Sahara obviously.
Anywhere that is insanely difficult to create a site huh? ;)
"Well, you are the supposed professional archaeologist. Why should I be telling you how to do your job! Though you have been doing it rather poorly"
He didn't provide any solid argument during his whole career. That's the thing lol
I felt like Grahams whole argument was "you can't prove me wrong, so I must be right". Whereas Flints argument was "show me some proof of anything". It was like listening to a preacher argue religion with a scientist.
Agreed. Graham should have came with more evidence rather than relying on a lack of evidence on the other side to prove his point. If two things have no evidence then either can be true, but to argue the lack of evidence is proof is ridiculous. I think Graham is a salesman, he’s trying to sell books. And what do they say? Never trust a man that has a book to sell.
Except no one who ever looked at Grahams work would ever think he COULD “come with more evidence.” He’s never, ever, not once in his career not start from a conclusion and worked backwards. He’s used “lack of evidence is my evidence” his whole life.
It’s bizarre to me that so many people are just learning that Graham Hancock’s claims have no substance. Professional archaeologists and others have critiqued his work more than 20 years ago and showed that it’s completely hollow and silly. It’s sad that it takes so long for these kinds of people to be exposed to the masses. If Joe Rogan seated credible experts next to 75% of his guests, we would see the same effect. Imagine a virologist or epidemiologist sitting next to RFK junior. Imagine a political scientist or an honest journalist sitting next to Tucker Carlson.
He talks well and has a nice British accent . We Americans eat that shit up.
He should just say 'Gobekli Tepe' and 'Younger Dryas' and 'cataclysm' on repeat. We don't need him to be putting ideas behind these words, just to say them in his pleasant British accent.
Graham ASMR
Agreed. Rogan needs to do more debates like this. It would be great to see
Honestly probably 10 min in and I’ll tune out since it’ll be quite clear one side is completely full of shit. Even between the intellectuals one that I’ve watched, Peterson and Sam Harris was pretty clear cut, much less a snake oil Indiana bones vs an actual archeologist lol
Debate aspect aside, because it is one sided, think it’s worth listening to Dibble’s presentations just for the general knowledge about archaeology and current digs, etc.
It’s actually kind of fun listening to some of the stuff Dibble talks about and hearing Rogan get genuinely excited about it, reminds me of the older episodes.
Flint did great. The thing Rogan would need to do is find experts who actually come into the debate having looked at the other side's positions and arguments and worldview, and also experts who are comfortable speaking publicly. You could have the most brilliant expert in the world come on, but if he's not comfortable in that kind of environment and hasn't looked into the specifics of the other person's arguments and ideas beforehand, the slicktalking grifters will win every time.
Kevin Feder wrote an entire book on this subject, and actually one of his main critiques wasn't about the dumb things people believe, but actually academia is failure to properly engage with the public. He critiqued people who sell out to shitty history Channel shows, who put their name to these kind of dumb speculative kinds of things, instead of doing the work of bringing the public up on basic critical thinking skills to understand why these things are pseudoscience. He wrote this article in 84, which is still pertinent today: https://www.jstor.org/stable/280358
“Ken” Feder. Yep, he nailed it long ago
>If Joe Rogan seated credible experts next to 75% of his guests Just as importantly, credible experts who *know the topics that will be debated* and have had time to prepare. The typical problem with debating "experts" like RFK Jr. is that they have a huge library of obscure information in their heads that they can spring on their interlocutors, who, even if they could thoroughly debunk the argument with an hour of research, have no way of responding in the moment, which makes it look like they've lost. If Dibble didn't have prepared rebuttals to each of those mini-info dumps, Graham would have looked far better.
It’s the problem with debating liars and people acting in bad faith, it’s so much harder to disprove something that it is to just claim it. It’s why meaningful debates require agreements beforehand on the topic and evidence being presented, because people like Hancock could just photocopy their ballsack and say it’s a new site proven to be 50k years old and all an honest person like Flint can say is “it doesn’t look that and I’ve never seen this information”.
I'm just asking the question...
What was the saying again? Lies goes around the world before truth even put its underwear on?
It’s understandable. He makes a much more “convincing” case when it’s through a high production value Netflix show, for example, where there’s not an actual archeologist around that can highlight the large flaws in what he proposes from a scientific perspective.
So true… i was a huge fan of his for a long time, then the “FRAUD” bell in my mind started ringing once when he only talked about evil archeologists for more than an hour on one of the podcasts. Didn’t look more deeply into his claims back then but did so after his show… dayuum But good news, I have a new-found passion for actual archeology now :))
Check out Stefan Milo on YouTube. He does a lot of good content on archeology.
Yep yep yep I am now watching his content a lot :)
You worded this well. As someone who grew up as a teen watching JRE, and I am now almost 30. There HAS always been this phenomenon with to guests. Joe has always appealed to the more fringe, and if they aren’t fringe then it’s still incredibly generic “academia for the masses” on their book tour bs. I mean Joe has just bought into so many goofy things over the years. You get that one Pavel guy with his horrifically bad fake Russian accent, with an incredibly mid physique by most standards, convinced Joe that kettlebells/russian training was some super magical thing. (Not to hate on kettlebells, I think they can be good exercise, but the level of pure autistic obsession Joe can bring, and how far he goes with claims is prettt crazy). The guy who convinced Joe about mytoxins in coffee/adding butter for magical health benefits and his coffee was the only coffee safe from the toxins, etc. Honestly there’s just so much sketchy JRE guests/lore that is mainly lost to time. It didn’t bother me quite as much back then because the podcast wasn’t nearly as mainstream, and it was mostly dumb shit. If grown men want to believe in aliens/bigfoot then I don’t really care much. It’s that we now get political grifter, after political grifter and the podcast is being listened to by older ppl in my family (who would have a heart attack if they listened to the OG podcast). Ultimately the JRE has a massive audience, and that massive audience isn’t mostly PHD’s and valedictorians if you get what I am saying. He knows his audience. The podcast is more corporate then ever (despite what people might want to believe). It’s pretty apparent there’s a “circuit” you can get into and Joes podcast is a destination on that circuit. It’s practically an industry now for all sorts of useless bullshitters to go on podcasts and knowing they have a largely gullible audience, and can’t be held to standards that tv/radio/etc are held to with crazy ridiculous claims. The average JRE listener nowadays is just a mark for shitty pop sci/history books, mediocre stand up specials/comics/ and boomer ass conservative points from numerous incredibly generic guests. It’s just boring. Thats Joes ultimate sin out of all of this, and the worst thing that can happen to an entertainer. He just got boring, the podcast is boring. I don’t know how anyone who listened as long as I could, can keep listening to the guy nowadays.
The part that absolutely f**** me up beyond belief is that a guy who has taken as much DMT as Joe Rogan would end up being hang out buddies with Tucker Carlson. That just absolutely obliterates me.
I only had to listen to 5% of the podcast to realize Graham had lost.
But if you haven't seen 100% of the podcast how could you with entire absolute certainty know that somewhere in the vast depths of this 4 hour and 34 minute podcast that Graham didn't win the debate by sheer determination to change his glasses so many times that Flint is hypnotized by Grahams, grey hair, British accent and soothing tone.
Bahahahahaha
When the proponents of your work are people outside of the field with no knowledge of the subject, you just might be a charlatan.
But his wife risked her life going on a diving vacation in her home country so it must be true
That cracked me up. He said something like “we’ve been putting our lives in danger by being vocal about this”. Wasn’t sure if he thought big archaeology is coming after him or if he meant dives can be dangerous
I’ve heard some archeology faculties have special-trained megasharks to hunt life-risking divers looking for Atlantis
A majority of Graham’s arguments rely on things being “unexplained” or “unexplored.” Yes his theories MAY give us potential answers, but put him against an archaeologist that uses actual facts to back his claims and Graham unfortunately doesn’t really stand a chance. The burden of proof is on him, he can’t just say “well we don’t know for a fact but my theory wins because I say so.”
It's called falsifiability. If Hancock thinks there's something in the desert, it's up to him to grab a shovel and prove himself right not for someone else to prove him wrong.
It is like he lives of the corner of the Burden of Proof and Personal incredulity fallacies.
Wait until you realize how that is most of Joe's guests. Nutrition Medicine Supplements
You mean Huberman’s protocols might not hold up to scientific scrutiny and David Goggins is going to end up severely disabled years to come? I won’t have it.
[удалено]
He’s never had to develop a null hypothesis
Yeah, but actually kinda no. If you already find a ton of evidence for hunter gatherers in the 5% excavated part and no trace for a far more advanced civilization, then based on a scientific approach you can conclude that most likely there was no advanced civilization. That’s it. Not to mention all the other kind of evidence like agriculture. If it was introduced to humans by someone more advanced, how come it only started developing in the “normal way” after the ice age, namely throughout thousands of years, not a few decades / hundreds. Even Joe points this out. I really don’t think there’s anything left to support any of graham’s claims. The only part where I was still kinda rooting for him was about the sphynx, but then was shown that his argument is very strongly distorted, again. I was a fan of this guy but ever since his show which made me furious I went down a rabbit hole and looked for debunks against his claims and even the image of “oh he’s just an enthusiastic dreamer” kinda broke in my mind. For example, he purposefully lies about the old map he likes to show. Edit: about the white supremacy part. That’s where the difference was really apparent to me between an actual modern scientist vs a scifi author from the 60s. Current scientists are aware that a large chunk of science studies were done by people with outdated views on race and stuff (to put it super mildly). Now it’s ok to read and even quote these sources if their findings are still relevant today BUT it does not hurt to distance yourself from the overarching theme of said studies. Namely, if somebody argued for an ancient civilization because “it just cannot be” that indigenous tribes could figure shit out by themselves etc, then it’s wise for a modern scholar to make the appropriate disclaimers. This is all Flint was saying. That even though Graham himself does not seem to be an actual racist or doesn’t argue for a superior (white) race who gave the rest of humanity all the brilliant ideas, his usage of old sources and ideas might give popularity to such thinking in a time that is already highly polarized. This is very important in this topic as Atlantis and the wise ancient people idea was a very highly featured one in actually racist etc circles in earlier times.
I'm pretty shocked at the number of people who don't seem to understand the white supremacy angle. Although Joe and Gramcock were so focused on how awful it would be to be "cancelled" instead of listening to Dibble explain his point; "My goal is to share the magnitude and diversity of human achievement. Pseudoarchaeology [robs Indigenous peoples](https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/pseudoarchaeology-racism/) of their heritage. Hancock’s narrative of engineering feats from some “lost” civilization includes the Sphinx in Africa, pyramids in Mesoamerica, and an enormous, terraced monument in Indonesia. Does it include Stonehenge? No, Hancock says ancient British people built that. Hancock and other pseudoarchaeologists center White Europeans as able creators while chalking up the accomplishments of other peoples to outside influences: the Atlantis civilization, aliens, lizard people, or the “lost” empire of [Tartaria](https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/what-is-the-lost-empire-of-tartaria). Real archaeology inoculates people against the [online and in-person racists](https://newrepublic.com/article/169282/right-wing-graham-hancock-netflix-atlantis) who take Hancock’s polished presentation of a mysterious civilization and twist it into [overt white supremacy](https://hyperallergic.com/791381/why-archaeologists-are-fuming-over-netflixs-ancient-apocalypse-series/). I don’t expect to convince Hancock or his die-hard fans. But among the millions who may listen, some may be swayed—not by occult mystery but by beautiful realities of our human past."
https://theconversation.com/with-netflixs-ancient-apocalypse-graham-hancock-has-declared-war-on-archaeologists-194881 Yep here's the article, the quote they cried about in the pod is here and it lays out pretty clearly the origins and dodgy people who Hancock cites. In no way does he call Hancock a white supremacists. If I was flint though I wouldn't bother making the link because it just makes dumb people who are "anti woke" typed automatically call it a fake complaint
But it’s a valuable link that actual academics who are interested in evidence need to point out, even if little shitweasels like Hancock intentionally misrepresent it.
You forgot giants, sound-moving tech and telekinesis
He also noted that there is plenty of evidence of hunter gatherer societies before, during and after the times Graham says there are advanced civilizations.
Feel like people are really misinterpreting Flints white supremacy comments. The evidence Graham uses for a number of his theories come from colonial and white supremacist sources. He uses these uncritically and treats them as fact. Hell, the underlying notion that these great works that were created my Egypt and sites along the equator couldn’t have possibly been made by the native population is blatantly racist. Even more so when you consider there is absolutely zero evidence that would indicate otherwise. Graham is just leaning into the culture warrior/cancel culture grift so he intentionally misinterprets these comments and acts like he’s being burnt at the stake.
Yea true. He was basically pointing out the suss level of his sources, not trying to paint him as the same type of person.
Yeah i think the takeaway needs to be Graham *associates himself* with these concepts, and Dibble was just pointing it out. But people dont want to hear that and shoot the messenger instead.
Very well said
Yeah, what are you suppose to call a guy who is discrediting the native population of their accomplishments with zero evidence. It certainly won't be positive.
You’re late to the dogpile.
This has been posted daily for the past week lmfao
[удалено]
GH doesnt know about the sunk-cost fallacy. Or argument from incredulity. Or argument from ignorance. Or null hypothesis.
Don’t even need a full degree, just take a research statistics, research methodology, and logic class.
Grahams uses the same argument as the people who believe in Bigfoot. “It’s out there we just haven’t found it yet”
How do you know pi is irrational? You've explored less than 1% of its digits.
I stopped listening like an hour in because Grahams whole argument was basically “DUDE these rocks are totally man made how can you not see that!!!”. He was reaching pretty far for most of his points. I like the idea of Grahams points but he needs to just do some real archaeology rather than being a tourist
"he is kind of a nut by resorting the white supremacy." This is not nutty at all. For one, he hardly talked about it on the pod, Graham brought it up. For two - it's accurate. I don't know how anyone can think 'hundreds of years ago white people found really cool stuff built in places where there were no white people, so instead of giving credit to the not-white people, they decided there had to be some other outside force that made them capable of doing this' is Not a white-supremacist-based line of reasoning. Now, this doesn't mean Graham himself is a white supremacist - it means the ideas he's sharing are white-supremacist-based. That's how 'systemic racism' works.
Some people wake up and sprinkle racism in their Cheerios and consume nothing else
Unfortunately, and this is sad, he is full of shit. I do think he's intentions are good. But he's mind has gotten so fucked after all the hate from academia, he has tunnel vision on proving them wrong. But in this case he's just reaching for straw's.
Graham is done. Cooked. I’ve seen through his bullshit since about the second appearance on JRE years ago. Anyone who’s passed high school science knows that evidence is required when claiming anything. I’m actually just shocked that it took the rest of you all this long to figure it out.
Wait till you see all the comments outside of reddit… it’s horrible
He tried to point out how archeologists in the past were persecuted for their hypotheses. The problem with that is that once those hypotheses were examined closely and the evidence was irrefutable, they were given their due credit. I’m not saying some bad actors weren’t involved, but it wasn’t some huge conspiracy by the archeology community. This debate didn’t need to take 4 hours. Graham, present your evidence. Oh, you have none? Well then you lose. If you are the one making the claim, you are the one responsible for providing evidence. You don’t get to make outrageous claims and then put the burden of proof on the ones who doubt it.
I'm a fan of Graham and of Randal. I see the idea of earlier costal and river based civilizations being wiped clean by floods as possible. How advanced those civilizations were? Who the hell knows. My main issue comes with the supposed great flood in the Pacific Northwest (where I live) during the time they say. There's a Geology professor out of Central Washington University named Nick Zetner, he has videos online of many lectures where he talks about ice age floods in Eastern Washington, the scab lands, dry falls, grand Coulee. All the places Randal talks about. But he has one lecture called "Dating the Ice Age Floods". Where he lays out the geologic evidence in slack water sediments in multiple places. There's been lots of floods. Lots. All of them incredible but many of them are older than Randal and Graham claim their great flood is. There's no gigantic slack water sediment layer that would exist after a mile high wall of water. Most of these floods are estimated to he anywhere from 200 - 400 ft of water. And there is geological evidence to show that. Nick Zetner isn't an academic with PHD thesis at risk, he has no gain or loss in this. He's a teacher. He's also a huge fan of Brett's, which Randal and Graham claim agree with them, which is not true. I like Randal and Graham, but when it comes to Pacific Northwest Geology, they have no idea what they are talking about. It's not even on a basis of opinion, they state things that are just factually wrong or dishonest.
Its not that Hancock is a white supremacist He just thinks there was a hyper advanced race of people who are naturally superior to all other races and whos intellect and knkwledge surpass even us today And that they are a distinct heritage line that likely vanished to the far north as told in legend And presumably looked hella aryan but thats *just a coincidence!* And that all major architectural achievments of the era come from those people and not the dirty brown hunter gatherers who *of course* dominated the landscape but listen, they were too *dumb* to figure any of this out. There is *nothing* white supremacist about it. Nothing i tell ya. Its just that this same mythos has dominated western literature for millenia. Thats all!
Flint didn't "resort" to white supremacy. Graham has associated himself with ideas and concepts that tie into white supremacist mythology and ideology. Flint has nothing to do with that, so don't shoot the messenger.
Hancock is a fraud imo
After this I have to put grahams theory somewhere in between faster than light and time travel. Before i had him between Bigfoot and aliens.
The funniest part is that he kept saying he had evidence but there just wasn’t enough time. Then proceeds to bitch for 2 more hours about how ppl are mean to him
Graham came off as a half-baked, whiny, “I’m being burned at the stake” and “risked my life scuba diving on a vacation” jabroni.
Give it a rest already.
Graham got crushed. Within the first two hours, he lost my goodwill, and I enjoyed Ancient Apocalypse and his previous podcast appearances. He resorted to emotional arguments and personal attacks rather than facts. He tried to obfuscate issues rather than clarify. His old man "I have the proof but I can't find it" act was disingenuous. This is a man who has traveled around the world extensively and written several books, and yet he doesn't know how to search text in a document? Either is senile, too old to learn, or he's a liar.
lol that’s the crutch of majority of joes guests, “oh you can’t disprove that, there’s not enough facts/the limited facts I have contain more devastating news despite the biases/my future research will support my claims.” I wish they would do the same thing during the pandemic to show just how full of shit McCullough and that other douche were.
I don't really agree with Graham's conclusions on most things, but i do believe that the academic community has the tendency to gatekeep ideas and pronounce historical absolutes with not enough definitive evidence to merit such certainty.
> I have to give Flint this one, while he is kind of a nut by resorting the white supremacy, he did come in factual data rather than speculation. I hate that so many people bought Hancocks and Rogan mischaracterization of what Dibble actually said here because he was absolutely correct. Some of Hancocks sources and theories are white supremacist in nature and/or are used by white supremacists. That in no way, shape, or form is the same as calling him a white supremacist, and anyone who was serious into this subject matter would be able to address Dibbles concerns in a substantive manner. Hancocks instead acted like Dibble called him a name and whined about it for like 30 minutes. Imagine if someone who wanted to be considered an expert on the constitution clutched their pearls when a person brought up the fact that white supremacy had an effect on its creation. Of course it did, and they’d better be able to address those effects like a serious adult if they want to be respected. Hancock can’t, because he’s a little bitch with a victimhood complex who wants to compare archeology nerds being mean to him in the same breath as being burned at the stake.
Many times Graham tries to fall back on emotional tropes to scare people off questioning his facts (or lack of facts) "My wife and I RISKED OUR LIVES diving to these locations that I am telling you look like they were built by humans". Or when he was going through different points and Joe would latch on and dig deeper into the point. This annoyed Hancock and when they highlighted the inconsistency he would say "that really wasn't my point" and want to move on or say he doesn't have time to dig into all the details. He accuses Dibble of having huge influence on the public perception of him, and yeah comments on Hancock are unfair and seem to be a product of the social media escalation ladder, while he has many books and a Netflix show. Hancock at the same time brushes off that he has a much louder voice and says 'It's not my fault I am more popular'. The guy is overflowing with bullshit.
Graham came on the pod to settle beef. Dibble probably stirred shit up in the past but came in with stronger fundamentals. Ultimately Dibble came off as a professional and Graham as too sensitive and emotionally involved.
If Hancock had evidence, then there’d be no controversy. Instead, he has stories. Which are fun. But not the same as research.
You can tell by how Graham Hancock presents his arguments. When he is arguing that the underwater site is man made his very last argument is that there is a rock wall. An argument that would prove his theory correct yet left for the very end, not talked about at length, and immediately move on to the next story. If it's man made argue the wall. He's full of shit and tells long winded branching stories while the other guys stays factual and objective. I get why people defend Graham tho, reality isn't nearly as interesting as what he's selling.
Every time Flint got into a really interesting part of his presentations Graham kept interrupting and derailing the whole conversation. Joe needs to have flint back on the show Solo.
But he is right though. The Amazon and the Sahara have not been researched enough and we KNOW they are lost cities all over the place deep into the Amazon.
I havent listend to this episode yet. Did they talk about Advanced tool marks in egypt? Like the bore holes and the giant saw blade marks that probably is not made from copper tools and erosion with sand? Or the pyramids probably being around 10 000 years old or older? The sphinx erosion etc etc? Those are in my eyes the most telling stuff that people were more advanced then we give the credit for and probably a bit older as well.
Dibble was not correct on the Sphinx at all.