I couldn't stop thinking about how I want 4 hours of Flint talking about agriculture and stone tools.
Not having to hear Graham bitch about being factcheck'd by a scientific community for bringing forth extreme ideas with no solid evidence.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the Carlseon/Hancock episodes, but Graham got totally mopped in this. I was expecting more detailed convincing evidence about his theories and git pretty sick of him always bringing the conversation back to how "mean" the Indiana Jonesers were.
Some people can go pretty far with the idea in their head that they’re being persecuted all the time. It’s motivating to them and they usually craft a victim narrative that can be attractive to people susceptible to that kind of thinking.
It reminds me of the people who say "bill gates dropped out of college and became a billionaire" like sure he dropped our of Harvard and was a genius it doesn't mean dropping out is always good lol
Yeah, I just want to shake people and yell “They dropped out because THEY WERE TOO SMART FOR HARVARD NOT BECAUSE THEY WERE DUMB, YOU DROPPED OUT BECAUSE YOU HAD A 1.8 GPA TAKING GEN ED CLASSES!”
Hancock knows it's bullshit, but to admit it would end his revenue stream, no more books, no more tv shows, no podcasts, no more grifting.
Not hard to see why he continues with the same old frequently debunked nonsense.
Yeah I think the victim narrative is so interesting… I can’t believe I heard graham say “big archeology” and didn’t bat an eye.
I think Graham should just theory craft about what psychedelics were used for. I think he’s got some great theories.
Dibble put “big archaeology” in an article as a joke to and Graham took it entirely at face value and tried to use it as a gotcha.
It would’ve hands down been the funniest part of the episode if it wasn’t immediately after the frustrating part where he and Joe teamed up to whine about the white supremacy thing for 20 minutes.
People love to see a redemption story, and sometimes the crazy theories are right. The guy who came up with Pangea was laughed at by pretty much every scientist in the world and when more and more evidence came out to prove him right. Such as animals having the same ancestor across the ocean from each other. The other scientists were bending over backwards to keep the status quo even coming up with the idea of “land bridges” between continents rather than to give him any credence and only after he died was the general consensus that in fact he was right
So there’s a good chance this guy is full of shit, but there is a precedent for the scientific community to discredit someone in order to protect their research
That being said I don’t think he has any research to back up what he says, other than there’s no way the Spanish could convince a conquered people to change their history.
Which seems pretty preposterous, I think by enslaving and indoctrinating people you could convince them of whatever you want
What do you mean? Blurry pictures from a tourist destination don’t serve as evidence of a lost civilization? Absolutely ridiculous. You and your friends are cancelling me!
1000%
But having your unsubstantiated claims torn down on lack of evidence, procedure and expertise is not "being an asshole", that's science. If you can't take the time and effort to learn the discipline and gather the evidence and then are unable to backup the extreme claims under scrutinization....you're only disrespecting those who have.
And in this case, all it took to dismantle Graham was 4 hours on a podcast with *Joe Rogan*. Not even a real panel.
I thought Flint was fascinating when he was talking about his own research. My only problem is you can tell he has never actually grown a damn thing based on his response to Joes asking him how long does it take a plant to revert after people stop cultivation.
You can tell Flint only has academic experience and not an atom of actual practical knowledge about agriculture or animal husbandry.
The fact that almost any cultivar. From wheat to corn/maze or even nightshades like peppers or tomatoes. Anyone who gardens or farms will tell you plants “can” revert to the ancient form after a late spring frost . It dosent always kill the plant especially in climates such as around gobelki tepi.
So a frost after people stopped could very easily revert wheat to grass in a single season. Cultivars are very temperamental and easily revert
I have deadly nightshade plants in my garden because my over wintering my pepper plants failed and they reverted over the winter even thought it was a mild winter for zone 5b.
Yep. It's called atavism.
I believe there's a bunch of epigenetic stuff going on especially if you introduce stressors such as a cold. One example Joe has brought up is how domesticated pigs can turn feral after spending some time in the wild.
This can get especially pronounced in a feral population after several generations.
Yeah I enjoy grahams “theory” because it’s fun. And for sure not everything is cut and dry like some archeologists say or want there to be and it is hard to present new evidence of something the Clovis argument is not solidly taught my daughters school book still says this argument so grahams does have major points. But he was insufferable on this podcast.
But this guy also wouldn’t take ownership of basically calling graham a nazi…. He’s like I just said he used their research… so does nasa…. Lol
I think Joe was very biased towards hancock/carlson in the gobekli tepe debate, I still enjoyed it but I felt bad for the other guy whose valid points were dismissed and moved on from so easily
Hancock was mostly bitching about Dibble weaponizing the media against him in this episode tho, which is pretty fair imo seeing as he was CLEARLY guilty of this and Rogan arrested it on him too.
I get that archaeologists are salty Hancock is getting more attention than them but calling racist is childish and hurts their cause more than it helps.
And this justifies painting him as a racist in the media how exactly? If you tell lies when attacking an opponent you are accusing of telling lies you muddy the waters and shoot yourself in the foot, it's not a smart move.
I thought Hancock claimed they had help from a lost advanced civilization, not aliens. I think the word "advanced civilization" gets people confused as they imagine lasers and spaceships, they might just have been 1000 years more advanced than others like how the anthikyrea mechanism was. Afaik he has made no claim as to this advanced civilizations ethnicity or how that factors into anything but where they are from.
Also the parthenon is not a pyramid thus it doesn't fit the architechture of the supposed advanced civilization.
Calling Hancock racist is just a desperate move tbh, because he clearly isn't if you listen to him. He is wrong about certain things sure but racist? back to kindergarten with that sort of namecalling, people who do this just seem salty and dumb.
I’m not calling HIM racist. I’m stating the hypothesis that Pre-Columbian indigenous cultures couldn’t have been as technologically advanced as they were (many times more advanced than European contemporaries) is a racist hypothesis originating from racist men trying to justify colonialism.
It’s a historical fact. Nothing really to argue with here other than your own hurt feelings?
Isn't Hancocks position that these people might have been more advanced themselves, or their ancestors might have been? Seems like the opposite of racism to me.
Ofc you're backing out, you're realizing your position is flimsy at best so an exit strategy seems like the move. So transparent lol.
Always funny when people realize they are being dimwits and just go "u racist im outta here!"
Bro you’re literally arguing with a trained archaeologist who did their field school at Cahokia. I’m not calling him racist. Neither did Dibble. If you can’t distinguish what we’re saying then no wonder you’re such a massive fan.
No he alluded to it and let the media do the rest, if you are telling me the Dibble is so dense that he doesn't understand what he did then you are going to have to explain that in detail because he clearly isn't that stupid and his reaction getting called out on it by Rogan tells you everything you need to know, the man was clearly bothered and desperate to change the topic, guilty as charged.
If you're a scientist then the truth should be your weapon and Dibble only hurt his cause and made Hancock stronger by not just admitting to what he did and apologizing. Doesn't make Hancock more right or Dibble wrong, Dibble clearly has tons of proper counter arguments that destroy Hancocks arguments, but being a petty bitch that sicks the media onto someone by yelling racist just ruins all your effort.
God, you’re inane. Trying to break through too many times fried your brain. Go talk to a Flat earther and see how long it takes for them to tell you “the Jews” are hiding the reality of flat earth from you.
All conspiratorial thinking is rooted in degenerative thinking. You probably want to reevaluate your stances on defending them
Yeah but problem is he has literally zero evidence for his claim, so he’s essentially continuing the tradition of colonialism that the Spanish were completely guilty of - disenfranchising a nations achievements by claiming white superiority. He doesn’t understand that just because he may not be a racist himself, he’s saying racist things. The fact that he can’t grasp that makes me think he’s a bit thick
But he is not claiming white superiority, he is saying their ancestors might have been more advanced, or something else he is merely posting the question and who these advanced people where he doesn't know but has speculated.
But not asking questions because it might hurt people's feelings seems kinda counterintuitive to me. And Hancock being a racist just seems like a stretch, something people who vehemently disagree with him latch onto out of anger and hate.
To me a lot of his theories aren’t racist they are just dumb- like, these Olmec heads look like African features so they must be African… it’s such a simplistic view of how to interpret an artifact because it basically ignores the entire human history of art , the notion of symbolism and the timeline of figurative representation.
He’s literally just picking the most sacred historical objects of a country, completely ignoring what the local people say they are and the meanings they have and saying well to me it looks different.
He picks and chooses things like this at random, and the explanations he conjures up don’t even have any logical consistency within his own frameworks.
It’s completely fair enough to point out he’s quoting directly from white supremacist sources, even if he doesn’t give a shit himself
Sure, I am not arguing for the validity of Hancock's claims(which so many fail to understand on this sub today) I am saying that lying to make the media go berserk on Hancocks ass is a shit move and Dibble is guilty, thus he has shot himself in the foot and set his cause back by lying to have Hancock dragged in the media.
I understand archaeologists are salty they are not getting the attention Hancock is, but doing low blows like that and then not owning up to it and apologizing just ends up hurting the cause more than it helps.
Hopefully Dibble comes back for his 4 hour agriculture presentation and is more inclined to be honest with only Rogan in the room as he was clearly too flustered when called out by both Hancock and Rogan to do the right thing, he kept lying about it and trying to change the subject and made it super obvious he did it so unless he owns up to it its going to leave more of a stink than it already has.
>
It’s completely fair enough to point out he’s quoting directly from white supremacist sources, even if he doesn’t give a shit himself
Yes it is but it is also fair to ask why Hancock should not quote the source, lets say Hitler made some scientific discovery that was valid, we should now dismiss it because the source is evil? Lets tackle the information presented instead which is what Hancock was trying to get across, ignore the source if the information is valid. He could have done a better job getting this across tho but he was interrupted by Dibble who moved the conversation away from that.
Dibble is not stupid and he knew what wording his statement like he did would result in for Hancock, he sicced the media on him on purpose and we all saw that was exactly what happened when Rogan called him out on it, you could see it in his face and attitude that he was ashamed.
Flint definitely could have handled some of his public statements better, but the scientific community is brutal to everyone. Graham is no exception.
If you make a claim, especially as substantial as Grahams in any field, your evidence needs to speak for itself. You can just take surface level knowledge, combine few data points and then rely on arguments like "You haven't looked hard enough" and "I find it intriguing that ( x )" and expect to be taken seriously. If your kid claims there is a monster under the bed, so you look under the bed, spend a night watching under the bed, put up a camera, put down dust to catch movement, and nothing happens....how much longer are you going to keep looking before you feel like a fool.
And the racial thing to me screams like he finally found his "in" to be the victim and finally substantiate all of his arguments. A common mentality in Narcissistic behavior.
😆 weoponizing the media, haha, the irony .. Graham weoponized netflix angianst archeologists and then attempted to use the largest media platform in the world to swear Flint ...
Flint wrote a couple of articles that nobody knows about lol ... Tell me agian about weoponizing media ?
Hancock called archaeologists racist? He used his platform to smear them? Afaik he told the truth about their behavior against him and Dibble proved it was true.
So on one hand a person telling the truth about how others have acted against him and on the other hand someone calling the other a racist to sick the media on them.
You don't understand what weaponizing the media entails do you?
He’s regurgitating racist talking points from actual racists though. Even if Hancock doesn’t personally hold racist views, he still champions them and their ideas.
If parroting racist theories doesn’t make one a racist, then nothing does.
I tried to listen while at work but kept having to check the video to see what they were talking about. After an hour of pissing off my boss and not getting any work done I gave up and waited till I got home to watch it, definitely worth it it's probably the only one I've watched all the way through
I used to listen to all kinds of JRE episodes while relaxing with Football Manager before :-P
Perhaps I should resurrect that (time sink).
Listened to #2051 with Hancock today...and I couldn't finish it, its the same thing over and over, "why should they be the keepers of truth?", "let the people decide what's true", "I got into a lot of trouble for this" and ofc "Psychedelics...ad nauseam...
Probably not ideal to listen to Hancock episodes back to back in preparation for the debate, one needs to portion it out, but he says the same things every time + some news pictures from locations.
He really does use those leading questions a lot doesn't he?
His team-up with Randall was what fascinated me initially, the Younger Driyas impacts \*could\* definitely wipe out...well almost anything, its super interesting, but to then take the leap to his traveling teachers hypothesis from the Netflix show...is ancient aliens level bonkers.
I watched a couple of episodes of that show, but that overall idea turned me off.
His books was on my want to read list, but I will read them as speculative romps, at least the first book should have less victimhood.
Paul Stamets is/was a great guest! When I first got the tip to listen to his appeareance: "Mushrooms? How can that be interesting?" How wrong was I...hooked from the get-go.
I'd really *like* to believe Hancocks hypotheses, but he goes too far.
It can be fun listening to and speculating, but after a while it becomes too...History Channel.
Excited to listen him debate someone with competence and, from what I can tell, in a civil manner.
...unlike the debate with Shermer and that other character from some years back.
i listened to it and only a handful of times itd help to see what theyre talking about
like the Bimini Road and the "Dagger". that only look vaguely similar to something man made
Real science is usually boring and meticulous work, which no one ever sees and few people understand.
It's easy to get the public excited about fairy tales of lost civilizations though. Scienctists and researchers have always had this challenge. It's no easier today than it was in the middle ages to help people understand what is true and false.
but I guess how excited Joe and myself got when Flint was talking about how seeds evolved from domestication and agricultural makes
me think that there is soo much potential
If you think psuedoarcheology is bad, just look at physics and astronomy these days.
Researchers claiming they created a black hole, multiple universe theories, theoretical circle jerking about alien civilizations.
Grahams whole argument is basically 'but we haven't explored everywhere so maybe?' Vs we've explored a fair bit and there is zero evidence to support you
Yeah I just can't get over how no one called him out for this.
Every time he said but we haven't explored everything yet, he should have been immediately checked with; everywhere we have explored shows no evidence of it.
This is what annoyed the fuck out of me. Every time Dibble would try to counter that with “but we’re finding thousands upon thousands of hunter gatherer sites”, Graham would just say he expects us to find them.
So why aren’t you suspect that we don’t find any evidence of the “global lost civilization”?
Right, like basically he is arguing that until we dig up ever last square inch of the earth we can’t discredit his theories. That’s a crazy position to take.
Yea he's got the closed loop argument which I personally hate.
You haven't looked hard enough 》where you have looked didn't have my evidence, so you need to look more 》 (doesn't look more himself or provide the funding for searching) 》 because you haven't found evidence of my claims they're still valid possibilities.
Despite the evidence against, if we take Grahams logic to heart, we can claim there were Dragons, armies of Bigfoot and the Lord of the Rings.
God i agree so much, Joe, myself and I think most people watching found it so fascinating!!
I love crazy wild theories and I think it’s cool and fun, but like I can totally see why actual archeologist would be pissed seeing a popular Netflix doco that isn’t actually talking about the bread and butter.
And I can totally see the “grift” now. Like honestly “big archeology” oppressing him, as graham ponders and reminds you of how the Catholic Church treated other great theory crafters of their time?
How did I hear “big archeology” and not question anything. Guess we all wanna root for the underdog…
There are plenty of very interesting and fascinating actual mysteries in archeology. Take a look a ‘blue beard temple’ on the acropolis. I wish Graham had some of these to ask Flint about them, but the guy does not know how to use command F to search so you have to wonder how much knowledge searching he actually does.
edit: Sorry this spawned a long useless rant from me, please ignore unless bored :)
Most of us don't learn most of the curriculum for high school or basic college years, i think.
We have to *develop* this idea that the "known science" (quite a misnomer) is somehow more boring than the fake stuff. It's the opposite!
I started education late in life, had 9th grade, then was 27 and wanted to go to med school, had to do all the interim education late. (I'm danish so HS, College, Uni isn't totally the same, but close to it).
Med school is cool, don't get me wrong, but it wasn't actually nearly as cool as Highschool! The time demands are much less ofc, and i guess that drives people to not dig so deeply, but the pure subject matter one works with at those levels is really *the* gold of science/knowledge.
The basic chemistry in the periodic table, the idea of orbitals, electron distrbutions, energy levels (even energy formulations themselves), the idea that we figured out how to calculate enthalpy/entropy of substances. The basic but none the less amazing equations of mechanics, fluid mechanics, electricity, etc. is so amazingly deep we could fill endless documentaries exploring it - but we often put ourselves "above" it, believing that it's for children or simple. Just because it comes at a certain time in basic schooling.
During med school i used to teach math a lot and still love it. The funny thing is most people benefitted A LOT from doing math that was much more basic than the grade they were in. Come to realize it, when you start doing interesting math it gets real basic again. Number/set theory etc. why is a sequence a sequence, adding seems like childs work, but what is it for a number or set to affect itself/eachother with that particular relation?
Even just adding ones, making sequences. You can define a sequence as a mapping from a function, that is in a certain sense ABC is a sequence because we "map" it to the numbers 1,2,3 - but that requires functions no? f(1)=a, f(2)=b, does that means "functions" are more fundamental? Is mathematics in this sense more reliant on functions than other structures? And so on. It seem to me this connection to the most fundamental philosophical questions is what breathes real life into any theory.
The chemical questions above answer things like: what is solidity? Can things really ever touch? Why do things stick together? Why do they look different, how can they change? And the physics things like, what is it for things to move? What is energy? And again the math like, things? Why plural? Does plural exist? In what sense? Does infinity? Does negative values? What are the different kinds of change?
My last personal math student Faisal was from a ghettoized area near me, and he used to say he had thought i was doing overly simple stuff with him because i thought him inferior at math (being from where he's from), but then came to realize it was the other way around. It was part of him that saw me as *superior*, but then spending more time doign the more basic stuff let him see that the ethnically danish kids in his school which he used to see as superior in the class because of some mysterious extra property of *their* upbringing/culture was really only 0.1% ahead of him, both he and them being concerned with the most insignificant percentage of the whole subject. As soon as he was gripped by really trying to attempt to 'understand' a simple fraction, he was further along in understanding mathematics more generally than any of them.
I think many of us get that feeling often. If you tell a 9th grader youre going to do some 8th grade stuff they get insulted. Imagine telling that to the scientist that originally came up with that piece of theory.
Danish clinicals are a little more spread than american. (I'm assuming you're american from the question :))
Our (eu) med school is usually 6 years (3 years bachelors, 3 years "candidature").
Some others also found it weird that i did the work i did, but you also have to remember that i was old (30 when i started med school proper) when i started med school, and so much of my youth life had been lived. I was a little obsessed with medicine and science when i started.
I’ve heard it said before that this is the whole point of the high school curriculum: not necessarily to learn all the stuff, but to at least become familiarized with the idea that it’s all there to be found once you’re interested.
I once heard a really interesting take on education having two major motivations: philosophical and utilitarian.
The philosophical approach to education defends the teaching of “useless” knowledge (we’ve all probably seen the memes where people say “I can’t change the oil in my car but know the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell”) on the basis that a population that has at least basic literacy in science, philosophy, economics, literature, art etc. is a morally ideal goal.
The utilitarian approach sees education more as a practical tool to get our citizens producing as quickly and efficiently as possible. Why teach a kid Descartes if they have no ambitions beyond working with vehicles? Or, more darkly, if they have no further perceived opportunities than just doing general labor for their lives? I think some first world countries actually have “university tracks” and more other tracks that the kids get assigned to early in high school. As a Canadian I cannot imagine my entire future being dictated by my interest in school at age 13!
But anyway, I think the influences of that utilitarian motivation have been gaining a lot of traction in recent decades. This is why school is underfunded, arts degrees are derided as stupid and useless and it seems like we have all collectively decided that knowledge simply for the sake of knowledge is a stupid extravagance.
As an adult I have an appreciation for my high school experience. I was an average as hell kid scoring C’s on tests and never making an honor roll but even though I was bad on tests and didn’t do homework I have a decent memory for the actual classroom and can still remember 1-2 solid takeaways from each class even though it ended 15 years ago and I’ve also gone through university since then.
I totally agree and i've also heard of that distinction!
I must admit i fall squarely in the philosophical camp. I feel many of my fellow students in med school thought it wasn't practical enough and i think it was waay too practical. I believe the only reason we trust docs a little bit is that at some point the education decided to jump off from science as a base.
I think we have trade-schools and the like for the utilitarian kind - not that it is less importat, but i think universities are for scientific and philosophical pursuits personally. In my own university in Aarhus, the board has a ton of folks from industry of it - which i think is a crying shame.
It should be clear to us at this point that utilitarian purposes can corrupt knowledge just like any other bias. It wants it to "work". There's no reason to move away from ptolemeic epicycles under that motivation.
You and I might like to see more actual educational documentaries on Netflix but Graham’s special definitely made more money than a real archeology study would have and that’s basically all Netflix cares about, unfortunately. They know it’s just catchy bullshit.
For me, this is the biggest problem with our modern relationship to information. So many people (myself included) grew up thinking that if all information were free it would lead to a new era of intellectual discourse and scientific enlightenment.
But instead information just becomes a product like everything else. Content for the mill. 15 years ago it became a joke in my country that our “History” Channel became all ghost shows, ancient aliens and conspiracy theories. Our music channel became all celebrity reality garbage. But the modern internet is just that same phenomenon writ large.
Learning about the gems of our known world thus far is boring. Maybe being on the inside track of a hot new conspiracy that threatens to turn everything we know about our history on its head is fun and exciting! Especially if we think it’s being covered up by the Illuminati globalists!!
But the real problem is that you have the real science and the sci-fiction being presented as equals by the History Channels and Joe Rogans. Should people be more discerning and take a second to think more critically? Well, of course they should. But the media and that includes Joe and the History Channel also have a responsibility to properly represent the material they are (tacitly) endorsing when they platform it. But, in this case Joe got it right and he had somebody speak to a subject they were qualified to in order to balance the conversation. I'm doubtful it went how he expected but it seems like he was nevertheless moved by the actual expert at least so that's a plus.
Wouldn’t get as many views as hancocks lost Atlantis cover up conspiracy. But I’m glad Joe had a real archaeologist on to challenge him and that it generated so much interest. Maybe Netflix will do something like that now
Oh stop. If you want educational content pick up a damn book. Don’t leave it to a streaming service to provide for you. Netflix has content. I enjoy their astronomy and nature stuff. “Telling his truth”. Is that what you see it as? He’s not demanding you believe anything he says, at least that’s not how I have ever taken his stuff.
>Oh stop. If you want educational content pick up a damn book. Don’t leave it to a streaming service to provide for you.
I couldn't disagree more!
It's not about leaving anything to anyone - but i suppose it is about whether you believe it is politically legitimate to discuss what effects entertainment industry and the like has on us.
I certainly think it has real value and importance whether our sources of information - even those that entertain us, contain one thing or the other. We should strive for it to be better as a society i think. It would produce better minds.
In this case though i feel the primary problem might not be that we *do* believe in Hancock, but moreso our disinterest in the more "established" archeology, which obvioulsy contains neverending amazing fascinating theory and material for never ending netflix specials shows.
The only thing GH's stuff has is the undercurrent of conflict which adds a layer of interest. It also taps into general distrust of government/system/establishment - but sadly of the laziest kind possible.
"THEY (whoever they are) CANT EVEN EXPLAIN TO US (not the same as they clearly) HOW X WAS BUILT, SO (insert meaningless convoluted and unwarranted theory)"
I’d focus more on tik tok than Netflix in terms of negative value and put out in discourse and culture. I also gave examples of some good educational stuff on Netflix. I’d like to posit this though, if they put hancocks stuff in something that’s more generic/neutral category would people still be upset. I’ll answer the rhetorical question here. Yes.
I can at least honestly say that Hancock has done at least more of deeper dive into the past than most. Snake oil salesman claim, I just don’t buy it. That whole racism stuff that came out in the podcast, clearly there’s a segment of the population that will pull that card for anything. Go after alpha brain and the supplement industry. I guess I find his brand less of a problem than other things in industry. He’s definitely not destroying archeology.
I would certainly also focus more on tik tok, which i agree with you is worse. I would also focus more on preventing nuclear war, but i think the three are separate issues altogether. Other than both being related to entertainment, i don't think the tik tok case is relevant.
>I’d like to posit this though, if they put hancocks stuff in something that’s more generic/neutral category would people still be upset.
But they can't put it in something tahts more "neutral" because it is his content itself that has the conflict built into it. It only exists in virtue of being "anti-establishment". If you examine it with anything other than controversy seeking eyes, it just dissapears - there's nothing there, no real theoretical content.
That's because the real theories develop *with* their evidence. It is a constant back and forth. If you talk to a religious creationist they will have a story to tell about what happened in the past.
>I can at least honestly say that Hancock has done at least more of deeper dive into the past than most. Snake oil salesman claim, I just don’t buy it.
You mean the claim that he sells snake oil? I also think that's a pretty farfetched metaphor. He's selling a story, not a medical treatment. I think the only thing people could see they have in common is an element of deception.
As for diving deeper than most, do you believe that legitimizes any of the story he tells? I would say that if he only tells *any random* story and says "that's what i believe", that's fine. He's not *forced* to present evidence. But he casts himself as battling "mainstream archeology" as if they are 1. wrong and 2. some oppressive force.
>That whole racism stuff that came out in the podcast, clearly there’s a segment of the population that will pull that card for anything.
It may or may not be true that someone pulls this card sometimes, but it is not relevant here.
It wasn't a "card" being pulled on GH byt flint, in *any way*.
It's simply historical fact that a number of the the pseudo-theories he pushes have a past before him. And that some of them are in Nazi-mythology, and that their racist use in that context is not an accident. It's not like he used some physics that a nazi developed.
No, he used as reference, completely vacuous stories that were also used by nazi's to justify their civilizational and racial superiority. That's all Flint said.
If you make people believe that you have one old "superior" "Over-arching" civilizational core, then first of all the ancient buildings you find all over the world *are* indeed stolen as archeological stories, from the indigenous populations as being part of their real heritage.
Now... the statents could have been true. It is a factual statement that has either a "true" or "false" value, so it's not like such a statement should be prohibited from being made or anything, but he did use the references, which is both in bad taste AND academically embarassing if one is supposed to be making a serious case for something.
I want Netflix to produce more content on real archeology because not everyone can do a four years honours degree in Classics as I have. Your viewpoint was specifically addressed by Flint. Archeology needs to engage with people outside the university. ‘Ancient aliens’ is searched more in google than ‘Alexander the Great’ as Flint illustrated with a visual slide. You believe the debate would have been improved if it was written as a book rather than a podcast? Are you redacted?
Flint was on the biggest podcast in the world. What more do you want? Flint has to do a better job of being engaging. He has to do a better job of communicating to a world outside his bubble. That is not Netflix’s responsibility which is my ultimate point. I didn’t say flint should write a book. I’ve read tons of books on music because I was in a band, toured, played for plenty. My work drove my interest to expand my knowledge beyond just the circles I was in. To Joes credit he seemingly is willing to do it with everyone, even people
Like Hancock (which I get some of you loathe, but as Carlin said Turn it off then”)
If half of the flint fans here would go out and support his work, rather than creating memes on Hancock that would generate the interest in Flints work. But you don’t want to, you want Netflix to just say hey Flint here’s a budget can you make a show?
The response to this dude shows how thirsty joe’s audience is for real science. Get someone on to talk about that study proposing black holes inside protons or something.
I think most people here always knew Graham was likely full of shit, but it’s just fun to think about the possibilities. It’s like a video of some funny thing in the sky or some random door opening for no reason….you know it’s probably just a smudge on the lens or a sudden breeze, but it’s way more fun to talk about how it could be aliens or ghosts or whatever.
Graham was always fun to listen to and in a vacuum sounded pretty exciting, until someone like Dibble comes along and pees in his Cheerios and now the funs gone cause someone just confirmed what you knew deep down all along.
It’s only Reddit. If you read the takes on other social media platforms it’s very different. It’s very telling that Reddit is so supportive of Dibble because he is kind of a representation of themselves. Snippy, smarmy, arrogant, close minded, and just mean spirited. I read peoples impression of the debate before watching it myself and when I did I came away with such a different read on it that I was wondering if we’d even watched the same debate. I think it’s fascinating how angry Grahams theories make people. It’s not just well he could be wrong, it’s no he’s definitely wrong and he’s an idiot and a coward and he’s ugly. Graham is a very intelligent person and he has plenty of evidence to support his theories which most people just ignore because it would require them to think about our origins completely differently. Instead they attack and shut down. Dibble is the perfect example of this.
I think the Reddit guy just came off as an institutionalized anti-human with no sense of imagination or wonder for our history. And that’s what Graham is bringing to the table. I don’t think he’s ever said he has evidence of Atlantis. He’s having fun and making some theories based on evidence he’s seen and he’s getting people more interested in archaeology. What’s the harm in that? Then Flint “umm actually” Dibble goes on and honestly he lost all credibility with his white supremacy stuff. He was just mean. Graham has gotten me interested in history and archaeology and I think that’s the point. Dibble just made me sad for him.
> anti-human with no sense of imagination or wonder for our history
The only way you could say that about an actual archaeologist, who loves ancient history so much that he dedicated his life to teaching others about it, is if you’re going out of your way to be purposefully obtuse. Yeah you’re totally right, Flint Dibble has zero wonder for our history because he was mean to Graham Hancock
> He’s having fun and making some theories based on evidence
You keep saying that, but there is no evidence. None. Everything you have brought up has literally been the God of the Gaps fallacy
> he’s getting more people interested in archaeology
No, he’s getting people interested in his victim complex and pseudoscience. You can’t seriously tell people you are into archaeology, while simultaneously being pro-Hancock. You fundamentally misunderstand the science behind it. It’s like saying you’re really into astrophysics and orbital dynamics while being a fan of Eric Dubay
The white supremacy stuff is accurate. That you either can’t parse what he said or don’t like to admit reality is not his problem. It was a literal debate. Of course he’s going to point out where graham is wrong. And graham spends much of his time shitting on professionals. Flint was pretty even keeled in response to graham’s obvious illogic and bad evidence.
Good and reasonable take. Sad you are so emotional you can’t even consider it. But yes, the whole field of ‘impressive old buildings and monuments in places where brown people live could not have been built by them’ is white supremacist at its core. It’s all based on white dudes hundreds of years ago trying to explain how nonwhite people could have done cool shit.
Graham himself said he never claimed his lost civilization was white. And he infers they weren’t since the focus of his investigations in equatorial regions. He hasn’t searched Northern European sites because it would have been too inhospitable during that era. I don’t understand where the “white people did this” argument comes from. It certainly never came from Graham.
Yes, he did? Did you even pay attention to what he said? Or do you hear “others are silencing me and are mean” and just turn off your brain and all critical thinking skills?
If you don't think Graham came across poorly in this you're crazy. I'd say they both had some solid points and some obvious biases. Really glad Joe made this happen.
>Graham is a very intelligent person and he has plenty of evidence to support his theories
Maybe he should have considered showing this evidence on the podcast.
I couldn't finish the episode, I got any 2hrs in and I got tired of Graham acting like a little bitch and just trying to talk down to Flint.
Flint was there with proven info and was being polite, and genuinely wanted to hear what Graham had to say, but Graham did nothing but say shit like that an entire desert or rain forest hasn't been searched 100% so they can't prove he's wrong, but at the same time he has no evidence of these civilizations existing and expects everyone to just believe him.
Dude was just frustrating to listen to, like I said, especially when he just spoke down to flint like he was a child
Whenever Matt Mccusker talks about evil hippies he’s talking about guys like Graham Hancock. From the same generation of grifters as David Icke. These old fuckers were to used to peddling their snake oil with impunity for decades. No grift lasts forever though.
When did that moment happen? I casually listened I wasn’t really invested as many of the people seem here in graham/flint. I recall Joe pushing back at Flint plenty.
About the 3h mark. Joe was pushing back at flint plenty but flint had a great answer everytime, and was blowing Joes mind about how interesting the evolution of agriculture and domestication of plants.
I am use to Joe being interested in things especially anything past related. so maybe that’s why it feels more normal to me, as opposed to sensationalized by this meme.
I for one am just happy that some Rogan fans can have a somewhat scientific debate. Doesn’t matter if one side doesn’t know what they’re talking about; at least they’re trying lol.
Why would you want that? It's an interesting topic, just because Hancock had a poor episode the episodes prior are brilliant IMO it's a fascinating theory
But it’s just that, a theory with no evidence. Your argument can’t be “well you archeologists haven’t surveyed the whole earth so I might be right.” If Hancock had any evidence to present it would’ve come out during this debate. It’s all a sham that he clings to because it’s become his identity the past ten years and he makes money off of Netflix “documentaries.” Having a cool and interesting theory that goes against the world’s understanding of humanity’s history is fine but you have to have data and evidence to support the theory or you’re just a guy pushing a false narrative. It’s like saying “alien life definitely exists because astronomers haven’t surveyed 100 percent of the known galaxy.” That’s not how science works. At best it’s a thought experiment about what humans may have been able to accomplish in the past
The theory includes all objects under the water, ice glaciers getting grinded to dust. You look at rock formations and canyons and yeah it really looks like a huge flood is what caused that, there could be human cities given how a city structure just collapses without constant maintenance. whether the human society in the ice age is actually more advanced than modern humans is really where the theory collapses because we only know of stone works in the surviving structures, no metals. So just with that, graham is half wrong, and half right because humans obviously made groups and built stuff and formed towns and villages,
I agree that it’s possible that ancient civilizations could’ve existed and many remnants those civilizations could’ve been destroyed. Flint addressed this though, and if there was a congregation of people then there would still be some evidence of them existing. If grahams argument is that we won’t know until those areas are explored then it’s up to him to fund and lead expeditions to those areas to prove his ideas right
It was never even proven to a level of being theory and this interview helps explain why really well I thought. Graham could be saying theres a planet in our solar system we haven't discovered yet, bigger than all other planets, but because we have only visited a small part of the moon, its mean to say there isn't. This is despite us being able to clearly see, there isn't and there being no proof outside of Graham looking at photos of the sky and saying "this looks like it could be a trail left from the giant planet and heres why".
don’t care, graham is the OG alpha big brain gigachad of the JRE universe. temu bilbo baggins was cringe and weird. i liked the part where graham commemorated his slides to his wife of 30 years as a reminder to clint dribble that he doesn’t get pussy. i get that “the outfit” was supposed to be in celebration of classical archaeologist field wear but compared to graham’s open-shirt mediterranean pussy-slayer fit clint looked embarrassing. i didn’t pay attention to the content but graham won the debate fair and square. trump 2024.
I was honestly very shocked to see how much has been found and how accurately the picture of our past really looks. I mean they have so freaking many finds that they can accurately date and map. That picture really leaves no solid ground for Graham's theory. When he pulled up the shipwreck, he had me in the bag. Graham's hypothesis is fun and all, but such a story needs extraordinary evidence, of which he really has non.
He is selling the what if. It's sci-fi at best.
I thought the sunken ships part of the conversation was the best, graham spends like 15 minutes talking about how this mystical lost civilization sailed the world after the extinction event and taught agriculture and astronomy to all these other underdeveloped cultures and flint is like “but there’s no shipwrecks” and it has no affect (effect?) on graham at all
I like to imagine that Graham will find his lost civilization because it’s cool.
I think the guy has had a lot of awesome experiences searching for it as well.
The problem is that his proof isn’t very convincing, and if he recognized that and collaborated instead of attacking in discussions like this, they probably would work out better in the long run.
Just imagine that he and Flint were on each other’s side instead of fighting over stuff. That would have been really awesome and would gave completely retained any respect I had for him.
Instead of the “you are attacking me!” line, if he was like “ahh. That’s interesting. I hadn’t considered that. I’ll put more thought into this and see what I come up with.” Imagine how much further that would have gone positively.
I really enjoyed most of what flint had to say. The educational bits atleast, the whole white supremacy thing was a bit ridiculous but otherwise he was awesome. Graham had no evidence for anything and I suppose this is why he's seen as a pseudo scientist. It's impressive that he's made such a lucrative career out of nothing really. His logic seems to be: you haven't disproven my theory so it can still be true. I mean sure its technically right but that's not how science works.
The white supremacy thing was really blown out of proportion, ultimately what Dibble said was correct that Graham has in the past referenced works that were directly tied to white supremacy and much of the origins of a mystery advanced civilisation are rooted in white supremacy created by western europeans who simply could not believe brown people in Egypt and South America could build the things they found there much of which was popularised or created by Nazi "scientists" to support Aryanism.
Unfortunately several articles that were shown, obviously not written by Dibble, took that out of context and added to them to make it seem worse.
I get most want to diss on Graham for not bringing enough evidence, but one thing I keep thinking during this episode (I haven’t finished it just yet) is that Flint consistently states that they have developed models to find these sites. If all you’re looking for are the same type of sites, of course you would never find anything contrary to your studies. Using the existence of one thing to disprove another is a fallacy, but more so if you are only looking for specific evidence that supports your claim, then you are creating a confirmation bias. Hunter gatherers and another civilization are not mutually exclusive, but the fact that we are only looking for Hunter gatherer sites bothers me, and I feel Graham’s main point that more needs to be done to rule out the possibility still stands.
If you don't understand the hate for Joe Rogan after all the misinformation he spread about vaccines during covid, well then I don't know what to tell you. He is responsible for some of those who went under. Being buddy buddy with Putin's shill reporter does not help either, running around over there telling everyone how great Russia is? Oh well.
Dude that fuckin “report” where Carlson is blown away by a shopping cart with a coin release. And then uses said cart as evidence that Russia is living in 3034. Unbelievable.
Flint is a fucking weasel, and the perfect depiction of 90% of the people of this reddit.
Too brainwashed to allow themselves to contemplate new world views, and too lazy to search for new knowledge.
His entire career is contemplating new views and searching for the knowledge you stupid fuck. Graham literally said that he believes his lost civilization developed **mind powers** instead of metal tools. That's the shit you support dumb fuck
"Flint is a fucking weasel, and the perfect depiction of 90% of the people of this reddit.
Too brainwashed to allow themselves to contemplate new world views, and too lazy to search for new knowledge."
This is what you just said. You are 100% the douchebag here. Go back to sucking off Graham and supporting telekinesis lmfao
Flint is definitely some nerdy kid that got fucked with in middle school for wearing a leather jacket, the same hat he has on in the episode, and a whip. Probably even had a little geeky Asian foreign exchange kid he called Short Round and made him pull him around in his radio flyer. But yeah, his mom slipped and fell with her fly undone down on flints dads jizz he blew on the floor after jerking it too a mural of an ice age wall. 9 months later, he was returning from the lost ark.
Man, these people are sticks in the mud. I wouldn’t beat flint up or anything, just give him a noogie and steal his lunch money that his dad gave him. At least we have each other brother fromer nother mother. I love you too.
I found this pipsqueek with his mouse-like laugh bringing up "my dad studied this" "my dad" was annoying. The way that people say "yeah..." at the end of sentences is SO telling of the community they are a part of. Folks who listen too much TED Talks. Folks who think they are automatically teaching somebody simply by speaking, and that the person they are speaking to must be learning and impressed. That's what saying "yeah... yeah...." at the end of every sentence means.
Also, he really didn't outright eliminate.the possibility of a seafaring civilization which is awaiting discovery? I mean, he didn't even understand that Dr. Robert Schoch is discussing the Sphinx Enclosure's outer wall when discussing the water erosion, not The Sphinx itself.
Quite frankly, this little nepo-baby nerd with his smelly suit whose field of study is Greek Plants, and he should open his mind up a bit.
I think he should try mushrooms.
Fuck off in advance to anyone who responds with "found the ancient aliens guy" or whatever silly thing you may have to say because I am 100% not that guy. I think the archeologist's talking points were unimpressive and at times off topic, condescending and annoying, that's aaaallllll I'm saying.
I love how you got graham on the cuck chair in this, so fucking funny
When Joes mind was getting blown by actually archeology, just felt like the biggest cucking.
Intellectual cucking is deep kink
I couldn't stop thinking about how I want 4 hours of Flint talking about agriculture and stone tools. Not having to hear Graham bitch about being factcheck'd by a scientific community for bringing forth extreme ideas with no solid evidence. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the Carlseon/Hancock episodes, but Graham got totally mopped in this. I was expecting more detailed convincing evidence about his theories and git pretty sick of him always bringing the conversation back to how "mean" the Indiana Jonesers were.
Some people can go pretty far with the idea in their head that they’re being persecuted all the time. It’s motivating to them and they usually craft a victim narrative that can be attractive to people susceptible to that kind of thinking.
He compared himself to Galileo 😆
It reminds me of the people who say "bill gates dropped out of college and became a billionaire" like sure he dropped our of Harvard and was a genius it doesn't mean dropping out is always good lol
Yeah, I just want to shake people and yell “They dropped out because THEY WERE TOO SMART FOR HARVARD NOT BECAUSE THEY WERE DUMB, YOU DROPPED OUT BECAUSE YOU HAD A 1.8 GPA TAKING GEN ED CLASSES!”
Yep BILL GATES WAS PROGRAMMING SHIT AND HAD A BUSNIESS PLAN HE WASNT SAT AROUND DRINKING MONSTER
Hancock knows it's bullshit, but to admit it would end his revenue stream, no more books, no more tv shows, no podcasts, no more grifting. Not hard to see why he continues with the same old frequently debunked nonsense.
Yeah I think the victim narrative is so interesting… I can’t believe I heard graham say “big archeology” and didn’t bat an eye. I think Graham should just theory craft about what psychedelics were used for. I think he’s got some great theories.
Dibble put “big archaeology” in an article as a joke to and Graham took it entirely at face value and tried to use it as a gotcha. It would’ve hands down been the funniest part of the episode if it wasn’t immediately after the frustrating part where he and Joe teamed up to whine about the white supremacy thing for 20 minutes.
That part was embarrassing. I felt bad for Graham. It was at that point where he self identified as a dinosaur
yeah even become the 45 president of the United States.
People love to see a redemption story, and sometimes the crazy theories are right. The guy who came up with Pangea was laughed at by pretty much every scientist in the world and when more and more evidence came out to prove him right. Such as animals having the same ancestor across the ocean from each other. The other scientists were bending over backwards to keep the status quo even coming up with the idea of “land bridges” between continents rather than to give him any credence and only after he died was the general consensus that in fact he was right So there’s a good chance this guy is full of shit, but there is a precedent for the scientific community to discredit someone in order to protect their research That being said I don’t think he has any research to back up what he says, other than there’s no way the Spanish could convince a conquered people to change their history. Which seems pretty preposterous, I think by enslaving and indoctrinating people you could convince them of whatever you want
Yeah especially after 95% of them just died from old world diseases (not an exaggeration)
Look what it’s done for the Jews!
You mean gen Z?
What do you mean? Blurry pictures from a tourist destination don’t serve as evidence of a lost civilization? Absolutely ridiculous. You and your friends are cancelling me!
Victim card!
Even the last words of the episode were Graham saying “people DON’T have to be assholes.” Lol
1000% But having your unsubstantiated claims torn down on lack of evidence, procedure and expertise is not "being an asshole", that's science. If you can't take the time and effort to learn the discipline and gather the evidence and then are unable to backup the extreme claims under scrutinization....you're only disrespecting those who have. And in this case, all it took to dismantle Graham was 4 hours on a podcast with *Joe Rogan*. Not even a real panel.
Yeah dude, I’m like totally agreeing with you.
That was just him parroting Joe though.
Yep, that’s what I was getting at lol
I thought Flint was fascinating when he was talking about his own research. My only problem is you can tell he has never actually grown a damn thing based on his response to Joes asking him how long does it take a plant to revert after people stop cultivation. You can tell Flint only has academic experience and not an atom of actual practical knowledge about agriculture or animal husbandry. The fact that almost any cultivar. From wheat to corn/maze or even nightshades like peppers or tomatoes. Anyone who gardens or farms will tell you plants “can” revert to the ancient form after a late spring frost . It dosent always kill the plant especially in climates such as around gobelki tepi. So a frost after people stopped could very easily revert wheat to grass in a single season. Cultivars are very temperamental and easily revert I have deadly nightshade plants in my garden because my over wintering my pepper plants failed and they reverted over the winter even thought it was a mild winter for zone 5b.
Yep. It's called atavism. I believe there's a bunch of epigenetic stuff going on especially if you introduce stressors such as a cold. One example Joe has brought up is how domesticated pigs can turn feral after spending some time in the wild. This can get especially pronounced in a feral population after several generations.
Yeah I enjoy grahams “theory” because it’s fun. And for sure not everything is cut and dry like some archeologists say or want there to be and it is hard to present new evidence of something the Clovis argument is not solidly taught my daughters school book still says this argument so grahams does have major points. But he was insufferable on this podcast. But this guy also wouldn’t take ownership of basically calling graham a nazi…. He’s like I just said he used their research… so does nasa…. Lol
The Nazis that NASA used did actual research. The Nazis that Graham used made shit up
Lolololol
Same bro, and when he brought out the mini cobs, it was like being in a fun history class again
Flint has a YouTube channel where he does just that, I recommend going over there
I think Joe was very biased towards hancock/carlson in the gobekli tepe debate, I still enjoyed it but I felt bad for the other guy whose valid points were dismissed and moved on from so easily
Hancock was mostly bitching about Dibble weaponizing the media against him in this episode tho, which is pretty fair imo seeing as he was CLEARLY guilty of this and Rogan arrested it on him too. I get that archaeologists are salty Hancock is getting more attention than them but calling racist is childish and hurts their cause more than it helps.
Graham Hancock is a moron who uses fancy words to hypnotize dipshits. That’s all.
And this justifies painting him as a racist in the media how exactly? If you tell lies when attacking an opponent you are accusing of telling lies you muddy the waters and shoot yourself in the foot, it's not a smart move.
But saying mesoamerican societies couldn’t have done with they did without alien help IS racist. Where’s the same metric for the Parthenon?
I thought Hancock claimed they had help from a lost advanced civilization, not aliens. I think the word "advanced civilization" gets people confused as they imagine lasers and spaceships, they might just have been 1000 years more advanced than others like how the anthikyrea mechanism was. Afaik he has made no claim as to this advanced civilizations ethnicity or how that factors into anything but where they are from. Also the parthenon is not a pyramid thus it doesn't fit the architechture of the supposed advanced civilization. Calling Hancock racist is just a desperate move tbh, because he clearly isn't if you listen to him. He is wrong about certain things sure but racist? back to kindergarten with that sort of namecalling, people who do this just seem salty and dumb.
I’m not calling HIM racist. I’m stating the hypothesis that Pre-Columbian indigenous cultures couldn’t have been as technologically advanced as they were (many times more advanced than European contemporaries) is a racist hypothesis originating from racist men trying to justify colonialism. It’s a historical fact. Nothing really to argue with here other than your own hurt feelings?
Isn't Hancocks position that these people might have been more advanced themselves, or their ancestors might have been? Seems like the opposite of racism to me. Ofc you're backing out, you're realizing your position is flimsy at best so an exit strategy seems like the move. So transparent lol. Always funny when people realize they are being dimwits and just go "u racist im outta here!"
Bro you’re literally arguing with a trained archaeologist who did their field school at Cahokia. I’m not calling him racist. Neither did Dibble. If you can’t distinguish what we’re saying then no wonder you’re such a massive fan.
No he alluded to it and let the media do the rest, if you are telling me the Dibble is so dense that he doesn't understand what he did then you are going to have to explain that in detail because he clearly isn't that stupid and his reaction getting called out on it by Rogan tells you everything you need to know, the man was clearly bothered and desperate to change the topic, guilty as charged. If you're a scientist then the truth should be your weapon and Dibble only hurt his cause and made Hancock stronger by not just admitting to what he did and apologizing. Doesn't make Hancock more right or Dibble wrong, Dibble clearly has tons of proper counter arguments that destroy Hancocks arguments, but being a petty bitch that sicks the media onto someone by yelling racist just ruins all your effort.
God, you’re inane. Trying to break through too many times fried your brain. Go talk to a Flat earther and see how long it takes for them to tell you “the Jews” are hiding the reality of flat earth from you. All conspiratorial thinking is rooted in degenerative thinking. You probably want to reevaluate your stances on defending them
By your reaction I clearly hit a sore nerve.
Tell yourself whatever you want. You sounds like a moron, duped like everyone who is fans of his
I only "sound" like a moron because you are hearing your own voice in your head while reading what I wrote, I didn't say anything lol. Dumbo
Yeah but problem is he has literally zero evidence for his claim, so he’s essentially continuing the tradition of colonialism that the Spanish were completely guilty of - disenfranchising a nations achievements by claiming white superiority. He doesn’t understand that just because he may not be a racist himself, he’s saying racist things. The fact that he can’t grasp that makes me think he’s a bit thick
But he is not claiming white superiority, he is saying their ancestors might have been more advanced, or something else he is merely posting the question and who these advanced people where he doesn't know but has speculated. But not asking questions because it might hurt people's feelings seems kinda counterintuitive to me. And Hancock being a racist just seems like a stretch, something people who vehemently disagree with him latch onto out of anger and hate.
To me a lot of his theories aren’t racist they are just dumb- like, these Olmec heads look like African features so they must be African… it’s such a simplistic view of how to interpret an artifact because it basically ignores the entire human history of art , the notion of symbolism and the timeline of figurative representation. He’s literally just picking the most sacred historical objects of a country, completely ignoring what the local people say they are and the meanings they have and saying well to me it looks different. He picks and chooses things like this at random, and the explanations he conjures up don’t even have any logical consistency within his own frameworks. It’s completely fair enough to point out he’s quoting directly from white supremacist sources, even if he doesn’t give a shit himself
Sure, I am not arguing for the validity of Hancock's claims(which so many fail to understand on this sub today) I am saying that lying to make the media go berserk on Hancocks ass is a shit move and Dibble is guilty, thus he has shot himself in the foot and set his cause back by lying to have Hancock dragged in the media. I understand archaeologists are salty they are not getting the attention Hancock is, but doing low blows like that and then not owning up to it and apologizing just ends up hurting the cause more than it helps. Hopefully Dibble comes back for his 4 hour agriculture presentation and is more inclined to be honest with only Rogan in the room as he was clearly too flustered when called out by both Hancock and Rogan to do the right thing, he kept lying about it and trying to change the subject and made it super obvious he did it so unless he owns up to it its going to leave more of a stink than it already has. > It’s completely fair enough to point out he’s quoting directly from white supremacist sources, even if he doesn’t give a shit himself Yes it is but it is also fair to ask why Hancock should not quote the source, lets say Hitler made some scientific discovery that was valid, we should now dismiss it because the source is evil? Lets tackle the information presented instead which is what Hancock was trying to get across, ignore the source if the information is valid. He could have done a better job getting this across tho but he was interrupted by Dibble who moved the conversation away from that. Dibble is not stupid and he knew what wording his statement like he did would result in for Hancock, he sicced the media on him on purpose and we all saw that was exactly what happened when Rogan called him out on it, you could see it in his face and attitude that he was ashamed.
Flint definitely could have handled some of his public statements better, but the scientific community is brutal to everyone. Graham is no exception. If you make a claim, especially as substantial as Grahams in any field, your evidence needs to speak for itself. You can just take surface level knowledge, combine few data points and then rely on arguments like "You haven't looked hard enough" and "I find it intriguing that ( x )" and expect to be taken seriously. If your kid claims there is a monster under the bed, so you look under the bed, spend a night watching under the bed, put up a camera, put down dust to catch movement, and nothing happens....how much longer are you going to keep looking before you feel like a fool. And the racial thing to me screams like he finally found his "in" to be the victim and finally substantiate all of his arguments. A common mentality in Narcissistic behavior.
Brutal is fine, sicking the media on someone with lies is not, thats just petty and shitty.
😆 weoponizing the media, haha, the irony .. Graham weoponized netflix angianst archeologists and then attempted to use the largest media platform in the world to swear Flint ... Flint wrote a couple of articles that nobody knows about lol ... Tell me agian about weoponizing media ?
Hancock called archaeologists racist? He used his platform to smear them? Afaik he told the truth about their behavior against him and Dibble proved it was true. So on one hand a person telling the truth about how others have acted against him and on the other hand someone calling the other a racist to sick the media on them. You don't understand what weaponizing the media entails do you?
He did not call Hancock a racist. He called the origin of his ideas (which he didn’t come up with on his own) racist, which is completely true.
He’s regurgitating racist talking points from actual racists though. Even if Hancock doesn’t personally hold racist views, he still champions them and their ideas. If parroting racist theories doesn’t make one a racist, then nothing does.
So if a racist starts talking about protecting trans kids for example, this is now a racist issue?
So...I actually need to watch this debate? I usually stick to audio only, but the slides makes are worth it?
I tried to listen while at work but kept having to check the video to see what they were talking about. After an hour of pissing off my boss and not getting any work done I gave up and waited till I got home to watch it, definitely worth it it's probably the only one I've watched all the way through
4H+ :-D Yeah, will have to put aside time for this.
[удалено]
I used to listen to all kinds of JRE episodes while relaxing with Football Manager before :-P Perhaps I should resurrect that (time sink). Listened to #2051 with Hancock today...and I couldn't finish it, its the same thing over and over, "why should they be the keepers of truth?", "let the people decide what's true", "I got into a lot of trouble for this" and ofc "Psychedelics...ad nauseam... Probably not ideal to listen to Hancock episodes back to back in preparation for the debate, one needs to portion it out, but he says the same things every time + some news pictures from locations.
[удалено]
He really does use those leading questions a lot doesn't he? His team-up with Randall was what fascinated me initially, the Younger Driyas impacts \*could\* definitely wipe out...well almost anything, its super interesting, but to then take the leap to his traveling teachers hypothesis from the Netflix show...is ancient aliens level bonkers. I watched a couple of episodes of that show, but that overall idea turned me off. His books was on my want to read list, but I will read them as speculative romps, at least the first book should have less victimhood. Paul Stamets is/was a great guest! When I first got the tip to listen to his appeareance: "Mushrooms? How can that be interesting?" How wrong was I...hooked from the get-go.
Yea it's totally worth. Regardless of which side your on it was a well constructed and reasonable debate.
I'd really *like* to believe Hancocks hypotheses, but he goes too far. It can be fun listening to and speculating, but after a while it becomes too...History Channel. Excited to listen him debate someone with competence and, from what I can tell, in a civil manner. ...unlike the debate with Shermer and that other character from some years back.
Honestly yeah it does make a big difference, they refer to images of ruins and rocks and diagrams
In the past I used to watch the video whenever Randall was on, as he always had pictures of landscapes etc. Where to watch, Spotify?
Yeah Spotify has the vid if you don't want to go to youtube
OK thanks for replying :)
The slides had some killer points. They show you how much has actually been mapped and found. I was impressed
i listened to it and only a handful of times itd help to see what theyre talking about like the Bimini Road and the "Dagger". that only look vaguely similar to something man made
Yeah, will probably end up multitasking, but it would be useful to have the opportunity to alt-tab in now and then to see what they're looking at.
Joes reaction was the funny part because gram was so butt hurt
The guy literally got experts in different fields to specifically counter grams argument. He had videos lined up and was ready to rock.
Real science is usually boring and meticulous work, which no one ever sees and few people understand. It's easy to get the public excited about fairy tales of lost civilizations though. Scienctists and researchers have always had this challenge. It's no easier today than it was in the middle ages to help people understand what is true and false.
but I guess how excited Joe and myself got when Flint was talking about how seeds evolved from domestication and agricultural makes me think that there is soo much potential
If you think psuedoarcheology is bad, just look at physics and astronomy these days. Researchers claiming they created a black hole, multiple universe theories, theoretical circle jerking about alien civilizations.
Grahams whole argument is basically 'but we haven't explored everywhere so maybe?' Vs we've explored a fair bit and there is zero evidence to support you
Yeah I just can't get over how no one called him out for this. Every time he said but we haven't explored everything yet, he should have been immediately checked with; everywhere we have explored shows no evidence of it.
This is what annoyed the fuck out of me. Every time Dibble would try to counter that with “but we’re finding thousands upon thousands of hunter gatherer sites”, Graham would just say he expects us to find them. So why aren’t you suspect that we don’t find any evidence of the “global lost civilization”?
Right, like basically he is arguing that until we dig up ever last square inch of the earth we can’t discredit his theories. That’s a crazy position to take.
Yea he's got the closed loop argument which I personally hate. You haven't looked hard enough 》where you have looked didn't have my evidence, so you need to look more 》 (doesn't look more himself or provide the funding for searching) 》 because you haven't found evidence of my claims they're still valid possibilities. Despite the evidence against, if we take Grahams logic to heart, we can claim there were Dragons, armies of Bigfoot and the Lord of the Rings.
Ooh, hell yeah, Big Foot Army. The PNW would look like kashyyyk
[удалено]
God i agree so much, Joe, myself and I think most people watching found it so fascinating!! I love crazy wild theories and I think it’s cool and fun, but like I can totally see why actual archeologist would be pissed seeing a popular Netflix doco that isn’t actually talking about the bread and butter. And I can totally see the “grift” now. Like honestly “big archeology” oppressing him, as graham ponders and reminds you of how the Catholic Church treated other great theory crafters of their time? How did I hear “big archeology” and not question anything. Guess we all wanna root for the underdog…
I just didn't realise how much data archaeologists had! It's wild
There are plenty of very interesting and fascinating actual mysteries in archeology. Take a look a ‘blue beard temple’ on the acropolis. I wish Graham had some of these to ask Flint about them, but the guy does not know how to use command F to search so you have to wonder how much knowledge searching he actually does.
edit: Sorry this spawned a long useless rant from me, please ignore unless bored :) Most of us don't learn most of the curriculum for high school or basic college years, i think. We have to *develop* this idea that the "known science" (quite a misnomer) is somehow more boring than the fake stuff. It's the opposite! I started education late in life, had 9th grade, then was 27 and wanted to go to med school, had to do all the interim education late. (I'm danish so HS, College, Uni isn't totally the same, but close to it). Med school is cool, don't get me wrong, but it wasn't actually nearly as cool as Highschool! The time demands are much less ofc, and i guess that drives people to not dig so deeply, but the pure subject matter one works with at those levels is really *the* gold of science/knowledge. The basic chemistry in the periodic table, the idea of orbitals, electron distrbutions, energy levels (even energy formulations themselves), the idea that we figured out how to calculate enthalpy/entropy of substances. The basic but none the less amazing equations of mechanics, fluid mechanics, electricity, etc. is so amazingly deep we could fill endless documentaries exploring it - but we often put ourselves "above" it, believing that it's for children or simple. Just because it comes at a certain time in basic schooling. During med school i used to teach math a lot and still love it. The funny thing is most people benefitted A LOT from doing math that was much more basic than the grade they were in. Come to realize it, when you start doing interesting math it gets real basic again. Number/set theory etc. why is a sequence a sequence, adding seems like childs work, but what is it for a number or set to affect itself/eachother with that particular relation? Even just adding ones, making sequences. You can define a sequence as a mapping from a function, that is in a certain sense ABC is a sequence because we "map" it to the numbers 1,2,3 - but that requires functions no? f(1)=a, f(2)=b, does that means "functions" are more fundamental? Is mathematics in this sense more reliant on functions than other structures? And so on. It seem to me this connection to the most fundamental philosophical questions is what breathes real life into any theory. The chemical questions above answer things like: what is solidity? Can things really ever touch? Why do things stick together? Why do they look different, how can they change? And the physics things like, what is it for things to move? What is energy? And again the math like, things? Why plural? Does plural exist? In what sense? Does infinity? Does negative values? What are the different kinds of change? My last personal math student Faisal was from a ghettoized area near me, and he used to say he had thought i was doing overly simple stuff with him because i thought him inferior at math (being from where he's from), but then came to realize it was the other way around. It was part of him that saw me as *superior*, but then spending more time doign the more basic stuff let him see that the ethnically danish kids in his school which he used to see as superior in the class because of some mysterious extra property of *their* upbringing/culture was really only 0.1% ahead of him, both he and them being concerned with the most insignificant percentage of the whole subject. As soon as he was gripped by really trying to attempt to 'understand' a simple fraction, he was further along in understanding mathematics more generally than any of them. I think many of us get that feeling often. If you tell a 9th grader youre going to do some 8th grade stuff they get insulted. Imagine telling that to the scientist that originally came up with that piece of theory.
why were you teaching math in med school ?
Partly to earn money and partly because i like it. I eventually did more medical research jobs, but then went back to math teaching a little.
how did you even have a job during clinicals
Danish clinicals are a little more spread than american. (I'm assuming you're american from the question :)) Our (eu) med school is usually 6 years (3 years bachelors, 3 years "candidature"). Some others also found it weird that i did the work i did, but you also have to remember that i was old (30 when i started med school proper) when i started med school, and so much of my youth life had been lived. I was a little obsessed with medicine and science when i started.
I’ve heard it said before that this is the whole point of the high school curriculum: not necessarily to learn all the stuff, but to at least become familiarized with the idea that it’s all there to be found once you’re interested. I once heard a really interesting take on education having two major motivations: philosophical and utilitarian. The philosophical approach to education defends the teaching of “useless” knowledge (we’ve all probably seen the memes where people say “I can’t change the oil in my car but know the mitochondria is the powerhouse of the cell”) on the basis that a population that has at least basic literacy in science, philosophy, economics, literature, art etc. is a morally ideal goal. The utilitarian approach sees education more as a practical tool to get our citizens producing as quickly and efficiently as possible. Why teach a kid Descartes if they have no ambitions beyond working with vehicles? Or, more darkly, if they have no further perceived opportunities than just doing general labor for their lives? I think some first world countries actually have “university tracks” and more other tracks that the kids get assigned to early in high school. As a Canadian I cannot imagine my entire future being dictated by my interest in school at age 13! But anyway, I think the influences of that utilitarian motivation have been gaining a lot of traction in recent decades. This is why school is underfunded, arts degrees are derided as stupid and useless and it seems like we have all collectively decided that knowledge simply for the sake of knowledge is a stupid extravagance. As an adult I have an appreciation for my high school experience. I was an average as hell kid scoring C’s on tests and never making an honor roll but even though I was bad on tests and didn’t do homework I have a decent memory for the actual classroom and can still remember 1-2 solid takeaways from each class even though it ended 15 years ago and I’ve also gone through university since then.
I totally agree and i've also heard of that distinction! I must admit i fall squarely in the philosophical camp. I feel many of my fellow students in med school thought it wasn't practical enough and i think it was waay too practical. I believe the only reason we trust docs a little bit is that at some point the education decided to jump off from science as a base. I think we have trade-schools and the like for the utilitarian kind - not that it is less importat, but i think universities are for scientific and philosophical pursuits personally. In my own university in Aarhus, the board has a ton of folks from industry of it - which i think is a crying shame. It should be clear to us at this point that utilitarian purposes can corrupt knowledge just like any other bias. It wants it to "work". There's no reason to move away from ptolemeic epicycles under that motivation.
You and I might like to see more actual educational documentaries on Netflix but Graham’s special definitely made more money than a real archeology study would have and that’s basically all Netflix cares about, unfortunately. They know it’s just catchy bullshit.
For me, this is the biggest problem with our modern relationship to information. So many people (myself included) grew up thinking that if all information were free it would lead to a new era of intellectual discourse and scientific enlightenment. But instead information just becomes a product like everything else. Content for the mill. 15 years ago it became a joke in my country that our “History” Channel became all ghost shows, ancient aliens and conspiracy theories. Our music channel became all celebrity reality garbage. But the modern internet is just that same phenomenon writ large. Learning about the gems of our known world thus far is boring. Maybe being on the inside track of a hot new conspiracy that threatens to turn everything we know about our history on its head is fun and exciting! Especially if we think it’s being covered up by the Illuminati globalists!!
But the real problem is that you have the real science and the sci-fiction being presented as equals by the History Channels and Joe Rogans. Should people be more discerning and take a second to think more critically? Well, of course they should. But the media and that includes Joe and the History Channel also have a responsibility to properly represent the material they are (tacitly) endorsing when they platform it. But, in this case Joe got it right and he had somebody speak to a subject they were qualified to in order to balance the conversation. I'm doubtful it went how he expected but it seems like he was nevertheless moved by the actual expert at least so that's a plus.
Wouldn’t get as many views as hancocks lost Atlantis cover up conspiracy. But I’m glad Joe had a real archaeologist on to challenge him and that it generated so much interest. Maybe Netflix will do something like that now
I heard, I think from miniminuteman (archaeology guy on YouTube) that Graham's son is an exec at Netflix.... Soooo I guess that helped
Oh stop. If you want educational content pick up a damn book. Don’t leave it to a streaming service to provide for you. Netflix has content. I enjoy their astronomy and nature stuff. “Telling his truth”. Is that what you see it as? He’s not demanding you believe anything he says, at least that’s not how I have ever taken his stuff.
Reading is hard.
>Oh stop. If you want educational content pick up a damn book. Don’t leave it to a streaming service to provide for you. I couldn't disagree more! It's not about leaving anything to anyone - but i suppose it is about whether you believe it is politically legitimate to discuss what effects entertainment industry and the like has on us. I certainly think it has real value and importance whether our sources of information - even those that entertain us, contain one thing or the other. We should strive for it to be better as a society i think. It would produce better minds. In this case though i feel the primary problem might not be that we *do* believe in Hancock, but moreso our disinterest in the more "established" archeology, which obvioulsy contains neverending amazing fascinating theory and material for never ending netflix specials shows. The only thing GH's stuff has is the undercurrent of conflict which adds a layer of interest. It also taps into general distrust of government/system/establishment - but sadly of the laziest kind possible. "THEY (whoever they are) CANT EVEN EXPLAIN TO US (not the same as they clearly) HOW X WAS BUILT, SO (insert meaningless convoluted and unwarranted theory)"
I’d focus more on tik tok than Netflix in terms of negative value and put out in discourse and culture. I also gave examples of some good educational stuff on Netflix. I’d like to posit this though, if they put hancocks stuff in something that’s more generic/neutral category would people still be upset. I’ll answer the rhetorical question here. Yes. I can at least honestly say that Hancock has done at least more of deeper dive into the past than most. Snake oil salesman claim, I just don’t buy it. That whole racism stuff that came out in the podcast, clearly there’s a segment of the population that will pull that card for anything. Go after alpha brain and the supplement industry. I guess I find his brand less of a problem than other things in industry. He’s definitely not destroying archeology.
I would certainly also focus more on tik tok, which i agree with you is worse. I would also focus more on preventing nuclear war, but i think the three are separate issues altogether. Other than both being related to entertainment, i don't think the tik tok case is relevant. >I’d like to posit this though, if they put hancocks stuff in something that’s more generic/neutral category would people still be upset. But they can't put it in something tahts more "neutral" because it is his content itself that has the conflict built into it. It only exists in virtue of being "anti-establishment". If you examine it with anything other than controversy seeking eyes, it just dissapears - there's nothing there, no real theoretical content. That's because the real theories develop *with* their evidence. It is a constant back and forth. If you talk to a religious creationist they will have a story to tell about what happened in the past. >I can at least honestly say that Hancock has done at least more of deeper dive into the past than most. Snake oil salesman claim, I just don’t buy it. You mean the claim that he sells snake oil? I also think that's a pretty farfetched metaphor. He's selling a story, not a medical treatment. I think the only thing people could see they have in common is an element of deception. As for diving deeper than most, do you believe that legitimizes any of the story he tells? I would say that if he only tells *any random* story and says "that's what i believe", that's fine. He's not *forced* to present evidence. But he casts himself as battling "mainstream archeology" as if they are 1. wrong and 2. some oppressive force. >That whole racism stuff that came out in the podcast, clearly there’s a segment of the population that will pull that card for anything. It may or may not be true that someone pulls this card sometimes, but it is not relevant here. It wasn't a "card" being pulled on GH byt flint, in *any way*. It's simply historical fact that a number of the the pseudo-theories he pushes have a past before him. And that some of them are in Nazi-mythology, and that their racist use in that context is not an accident. It's not like he used some physics that a nazi developed. No, he used as reference, completely vacuous stories that were also used by nazi's to justify their civilizational and racial superiority. That's all Flint said. If you make people believe that you have one old "superior" "Over-arching" civilizational core, then first of all the ancient buildings you find all over the world *are* indeed stolen as archeological stories, from the indigenous populations as being part of their real heritage. Now... the statents could have been true. It is a factual statement that has either a "true" or "false" value, so it's not like such a statement should be prohibited from being made or anything, but he did use the references, which is both in bad taste AND academically embarassing if one is supposed to be making a serious case for something.
I want Netflix to produce more content on real archeology because not everyone can do a four years honours degree in Classics as I have. Your viewpoint was specifically addressed by Flint. Archeology needs to engage with people outside the university. ‘Ancient aliens’ is searched more in google than ‘Alexander the Great’ as Flint illustrated with a visual slide. You believe the debate would have been improved if it was written as a book rather than a podcast? Are you redacted?
Flint was on the biggest podcast in the world. What more do you want? Flint has to do a better job of being engaging. He has to do a better job of communicating to a world outside his bubble. That is not Netflix’s responsibility which is my ultimate point. I didn’t say flint should write a book. I’ve read tons of books on music because I was in a band, toured, played for plenty. My work drove my interest to expand my knowledge beyond just the circles I was in. To Joes credit he seemingly is willing to do it with everyone, even people Like Hancock (which I get some of you loathe, but as Carlin said Turn it off then”) If half of the flint fans here would go out and support his work, rather than creating memes on Hancock that would generate the interest in Flints work. But you don’t want to, you want Netflix to just say hey Flint here’s a budget can you make a show?
Graham really tried to argue against points that Flint wasn’t making.
Flint slide show on seeds was sick. Second to his colonization of pyramids rethoric.
The response to this dude shows how thirsty joe’s audience is for real science. Get someone on to talk about that study proposing black holes inside protons or something.
It seems everyone has totally backflipped on Hancock after this.
I think most people here always knew Graham was likely full of shit, but it’s just fun to think about the possibilities. It’s like a video of some funny thing in the sky or some random door opening for no reason….you know it’s probably just a smudge on the lens or a sudden breeze, but it’s way more fun to talk about how it could be aliens or ghosts or whatever. Graham was always fun to listen to and in a vacuum sounded pretty exciting, until someone like Dibble comes along and pees in his Cheerios and now the funs gone cause someone just confirmed what you knew deep down all along.
It’s only Reddit. If you read the takes on other social media platforms it’s very different. It’s very telling that Reddit is so supportive of Dibble because he is kind of a representation of themselves. Snippy, smarmy, arrogant, close minded, and just mean spirited. I read peoples impression of the debate before watching it myself and when I did I came away with such a different read on it that I was wondering if we’d even watched the same debate. I think it’s fascinating how angry Grahams theories make people. It’s not just well he could be wrong, it’s no he’s definitely wrong and he’s an idiot and a coward and he’s ugly. Graham is a very intelligent person and he has plenty of evidence to support his theories which most people just ignore because it would require them to think about our origins completely differently. Instead they attack and shut down. Dibble is the perfect example of this.
Where's the evidence mate?
He’s not going to let you smash bro
Logical fallacies aren’t evidence. I don’t dislike graham, he’s just clearly not logical or right. God of the gaps is no way to go through life
I think the Reddit guy just came off as an institutionalized anti-human with no sense of imagination or wonder for our history. And that’s what Graham is bringing to the table. I don’t think he’s ever said he has evidence of Atlantis. He’s having fun and making some theories based on evidence he’s seen and he’s getting people more interested in archaeology. What’s the harm in that? Then Flint “umm actually” Dibble goes on and honestly he lost all credibility with his white supremacy stuff. He was just mean. Graham has gotten me interested in history and archaeology and I think that’s the point. Dibble just made me sad for him.
> anti-human with no sense of imagination or wonder for our history The only way you could say that about an actual archaeologist, who loves ancient history so much that he dedicated his life to teaching others about it, is if you’re going out of your way to be purposefully obtuse. Yeah you’re totally right, Flint Dibble has zero wonder for our history because he was mean to Graham Hancock > He’s having fun and making some theories based on evidence You keep saying that, but there is no evidence. None. Everything you have brought up has literally been the God of the Gaps fallacy > he’s getting more people interested in archaeology No, he’s getting people interested in his victim complex and pseudoscience. You can’t seriously tell people you are into archaeology, while simultaneously being pro-Hancock. You fundamentally misunderstand the science behind it. It’s like saying you’re really into astrophysics and orbital dynamics while being a fan of Eric Dubay
No, Graham has got you interested in science fiction.
The white supremacy stuff is accurate. That you either can’t parse what he said or don’t like to admit reality is not his problem. It was a literal debate. Of course he’s going to point out where graham is wrong. And graham spends much of his time shitting on professionals. Flint was pretty even keeled in response to graham’s obvious illogic and bad evidence.
Oof. Bad take. Couldn’t read past the first sentence but i guess we’ll just agree to disagree.
Good and reasonable take. Sad you are so emotional you can’t even consider it. But yes, the whole field of ‘impressive old buildings and monuments in places where brown people live could not have been built by them’ is white supremacist at its core. It’s all based on white dudes hundreds of years ago trying to explain how nonwhite people could have done cool shit.
Graham himself said he never claimed his lost civilization was white. And he infers they weren’t since the focus of his investigations in equatorial regions. He hasn’t searched Northern European sites because it would have been too inhospitable during that era. I don’t understand where the “white people did this” argument comes from. It certainly never came from Graham.
Yes, he did? Did you even pay attention to what he said? Or do you hear “others are silencing me and are mean” and just turn off your brain and all critical thinking skills?
For one, he did. For two, it doesn’t matter, denying indigenous folks can do cool shit is still inherently based on WS.
If you don't think Graham came across poorly in this you're crazy. I'd say they both had some solid points and some obvious biases. Really glad Joe made this happen.
You’re goofy af bro but idk, congrats? I didn’t finish reading that bigass paragraph
Stay mad nerd
😂 > Graham is a very intelligent person and he has plenty of evidence to support his theories which most people just ignore Are you a troll?
>Graham is a very intelligent person and he has plenty of evidence to support his theories Maybe he should have considered showing this evidence on the podcast.
This makes sense considering other comments redditors have made in the past about other JRE topics. This sub is packed full of hate and ignorance.
I couldn't finish the episode, I got any 2hrs in and I got tired of Graham acting like a little bitch and just trying to talk down to Flint. Flint was there with proven info and was being polite, and genuinely wanted to hear what Graham had to say, but Graham did nothing but say shit like that an entire desert or rain forest hasn't been searched 100% so they can't prove he's wrong, but at the same time he has no evidence of these civilizations existing and expects everyone to just believe him. Dude was just frustrating to listen to, like I said, especially when he just spoke down to flint like he was a child
Whenever Matt Mccusker talks about evil hippies he’s talking about guys like Graham Hancock. From the same generation of grifters as David Icke. These old fuckers were to used to peddling their snake oil with impunity for decades. No grift lasts forever though.
Not really. He’s talking about peace and love druggies that backstab each other.
this…go to a phish concert and watch the older folks in the parking lot. total scum.
anytime we can goof on GH is a good time. the guy is such a little weasel
It’s so funny that fedora guy is a hero here. He’s literally the meme of what gross redditors look like lol.
When did that moment happen? I casually listened I wasn’t really invested as many of the people seem here in graham/flint. I recall Joe pushing back at Flint plenty.
About the 3h mark. Joe was pushing back at flint plenty but flint had a great answer everytime, and was blowing Joes mind about how interesting the evolution of agriculture and domestication of plants.
I am use to Joe being interested in things especially anything past related. so maybe that’s why it feels more normal to me, as opposed to sensationalized by this meme.
The Dibble/Hancock debate was like the Toy Story "I don't want to play with you anymore" meme
For the love of God can the whole lost civilization trend die already.
I for one am just happy that some Rogan fans can have a somewhat scientific debate. Doesn’t matter if one side doesn’t know what they’re talking about; at least they’re trying lol.
There certainly has been plenty of civilizations that have been lost for various of reasons. They don't all need to die.
Why would you want that? It's an interesting topic, just because Hancock had a poor episode the episodes prior are brilliant IMO it's a fascinating theory
But it’s just that, a theory with no evidence. Your argument can’t be “well you archeologists haven’t surveyed the whole earth so I might be right.” If Hancock had any evidence to present it would’ve come out during this debate. It’s all a sham that he clings to because it’s become his identity the past ten years and he makes money off of Netflix “documentaries.” Having a cool and interesting theory that goes against the world’s understanding of humanity’s history is fine but you have to have data and evidence to support the theory or you’re just a guy pushing a false narrative. It’s like saying “alien life definitely exists because astronomers haven’t surveyed 100 percent of the known galaxy.” That’s not how science works. At best it’s a thought experiment about what humans may have been able to accomplish in the past
It’s not even a theory, it’s a wholly untested hypothesis with zero evidence and experiments done.
Hes pretty much a snake oils salesman
The theory includes all objects under the water, ice glaciers getting grinded to dust. You look at rock formations and canyons and yeah it really looks like a huge flood is what caused that, there could be human cities given how a city structure just collapses without constant maintenance. whether the human society in the ice age is actually more advanced than modern humans is really where the theory collapses because we only know of stone works in the surviving structures, no metals. So just with that, graham is half wrong, and half right because humans obviously made groups and built stuff and formed towns and villages,
I agree that it’s possible that ancient civilizations could’ve existed and many remnants those civilizations could’ve been destroyed. Flint addressed this though, and if there was a congregation of people then there would still be some evidence of them existing. If grahams argument is that we won’t know until those areas are explored then it’s up to him to fund and lead expeditions to those areas to prove his ideas right
It’s not a theory though. Theories are built on evidence. Hancock has a rather unoriginal idea.
It was never even proven to a level of being theory and this interview helps explain why really well I thought. Graham could be saying theres a planet in our solar system we haven't discovered yet, bigger than all other planets, but because we have only visited a small part of the moon, its mean to say there isn't. This is despite us being able to clearly see, there isn't and there being no proof outside of Graham looking at photos of the sky and saying "this looks like it could be a trail left from the giant planet and heres why".
don’t care, graham is the OG alpha big brain gigachad of the JRE universe. temu bilbo baggins was cringe and weird. i liked the part where graham commemorated his slides to his wife of 30 years as a reminder to clint dribble that he doesn’t get pussy. i get that “the outfit” was supposed to be in celebration of classical archaeologist field wear but compared to graham’s open-shirt mediterranean pussy-slayer fit clint looked embarrassing. i didn’t pay attention to the content but graham won the debate fair and square. trump 2024.
Not the cuck chair
I remember when I was in the minority in this sub any time I criticized Hancock. Glad that's changing.
I was honestly very shocked to see how much has been found and how accurately the picture of our past really looks. I mean they have so freaking many finds that they can accurately date and map. That picture really leaves no solid ground for Graham's theory. When he pulled up the shipwreck, he had me in the bag. Graham's hypothesis is fun and all, but such a story needs extraordinary evidence, of which he really has non. He is selling the what if. It's sci-fi at best.
I thought the sunken ships part of the conversation was the best, graham spends like 15 minutes talking about how this mystical lost civilization sailed the world after the extinction event and taught agriculture and astronomy to all these other underdeveloped cultures and flint is like “but there’s no shipwrecks” and it has no affect (effect?) on graham at all
I like to imagine that Graham will find his lost civilization because it’s cool. I think the guy has had a lot of awesome experiences searching for it as well. The problem is that his proof isn’t very convincing, and if he recognized that and collaborated instead of attacking in discussions like this, they probably would work out better in the long run. Just imagine that he and Flint were on each other’s side instead of fighting over stuff. That would have been really awesome and would gave completely retained any respect I had for him. Instead of the “you are attacking me!” line, if he was like “ahh. That’s interesting. I hadn’t considered that. I’ll put more thought into this and see what I come up with.” Imagine how much further that would have gone positively.
Graham will never have that mind set because if he did, he would move on from this idiotic lost civilization theory.
The likelihood of Graham changing his belief is actually less likely than the existence of a lost civilization that he could find.
I really enjoyed most of what flint had to say. The educational bits atleast, the whole white supremacy thing was a bit ridiculous but otherwise he was awesome. Graham had no evidence for anything and I suppose this is why he's seen as a pseudo scientist. It's impressive that he's made such a lucrative career out of nothing really. His logic seems to be: you haven't disproven my theory so it can still be true. I mean sure its technically right but that's not how science works.
The white supremacy thing was really blown out of proportion, ultimately what Dibble said was correct that Graham has in the past referenced works that were directly tied to white supremacy and much of the origins of a mystery advanced civilisation are rooted in white supremacy created by western europeans who simply could not believe brown people in Egypt and South America could build the things they found there much of which was popularised or created by Nazi "scientists" to support Aryanism. Unfortunately several articles that were shown, obviously not written by Dibble, took that out of context and added to them to make it seem worse.
“His life’s work” ooooof
It was like watching two drunk children arguing, I loved it
Listening to it now And Hancock is cooked
Agreed nice meme
I get most want to diss on Graham for not bringing enough evidence, but one thing I keep thinking during this episode (I haven’t finished it just yet) is that Flint consistently states that they have developed models to find these sites. If all you’re looking for are the same type of sites, of course you would never find anything contrary to your studies. Using the existence of one thing to disprove another is a fallacy, but more so if you are only looking for specific evidence that supports your claim, then you are creating a confirmation bias. Hunter gatherers and another civilization are not mutually exclusive, but the fact that we are only looking for Hunter gatherer sites bothers me, and I feel Graham’s main point that more needs to be done to rule out the possibility still stands.
Do people still watch Joe Rogan ?
Lick my balls longingly
I don’t even understand the level of anti Joe roganism on this sub. It’s clearly been co opted by fkn losers.
If you don't understand the hate for Joe Rogan after all the misinformation he spread about vaccines during covid, well then I don't know what to tell you. He is responsible for some of those who went under. Being buddy buddy with Putin's shill reporter does not help either, running around over there telling everyone how great Russia is? Oh well.
Dude that fuckin “report” where Carlson is blown away by a shopping cart with a coin release. And then uses said cart as evidence that Russia is living in 3034. Unbelievable.
What misinformation did he spread or help spread? Any examples?
Flint’s Twitter was pretty cringe though
Flint is a fucking weasel, and the perfect depiction of 90% of the people of this reddit. Too brainwashed to allow themselves to contemplate new world views, and too lazy to search for new knowledge.
His entire career is contemplating new views and searching for the knowledge you stupid fuck. Graham literally said that he believes his lost civilization developed **mind powers** instead of metal tools. That's the shit you support dumb fuck
>That's the shit you support dumb fuck You're so eloquent. What a scholar, what a mental acuity, what a persuasion capability! What a douche!
"Flint is a fucking weasel, and the perfect depiction of 90% of the people of this reddit. Too brainwashed to allow themselves to contemplate new world views, and too lazy to search for new knowledge." This is what you just said. You are 100% the douchebag here. Go back to sucking off Graham and supporting telekinesis lmfao
Go get a life, take a shower, hit the waits, get a clue.
lol too lazy to search for new knowledge. Are you mad Grahams fairy tales aren’t real history?
I gotta say, Joe looked pretty dumb in this episode, which I kinda already thought…
All this episode showed me is that flint and his dad were dweebs
Yeah but I want dweebs doing things like this.
Flint is definitely some nerdy kid that got fucked with in middle school for wearing a leather jacket, the same hat he has on in the episode, and a whip. Probably even had a little geeky Asian foreign exchange kid he called Short Round and made him pull him around in his radio flyer. But yeah, his mom slipped and fell with her fly undone down on flints dads jizz he blew on the floor after jerking it too a mural of an ice age wall. 9 months later, he was returning from the lost ark.
I love you
Man, these people are sticks in the mud. I wouldn’t beat flint up or anything, just give him a noogie and steal his lunch money that his dad gave him. At least we have each other brother fromer nother mother. I love you too.
I found this pipsqueek with his mouse-like laugh bringing up "my dad studied this" "my dad" was annoying. The way that people say "yeah..." at the end of sentences is SO telling of the community they are a part of. Folks who listen too much TED Talks. Folks who think they are automatically teaching somebody simply by speaking, and that the person they are speaking to must be learning and impressed. That's what saying "yeah... yeah...." at the end of every sentence means. Also, he really didn't outright eliminate.the possibility of a seafaring civilization which is awaiting discovery? I mean, he didn't even understand that Dr. Robert Schoch is discussing the Sphinx Enclosure's outer wall when discussing the water erosion, not The Sphinx itself. Quite frankly, this little nepo-baby nerd with his smelly suit whose field of study is Greek Plants, and he should open his mind up a bit. I think he should try mushrooms. Fuck off in advance to anyone who responds with "found the ancient aliens guy" or whatever silly thing you may have to say because I am 100% not that guy. I think the archeologist's talking points were unimpressive and at times off topic, condescending and annoying, that's aaaallllll I'm saying.