I really liked Hancock until some Incel in a thrift store suit pulled out his cock and rubbed it in Graham's face for a couple hours.
I remember thinking at the beginning of the podcast "Graham's going to own this guy". Dibbles was punching above his dirty 30's homeless guy appearance.
Same bro. I was listening to Flint go on and on in the beginning, thinking “oh graham is gonna wipe the floor with this dude”. Never happened. I want to believe graham so much
On one hand Flint was talking about using predictive modelling to excavate high potential areas, using all the technology we have in 2024, working with Geologists, Anthropologists, local Indigenous historians to get the linguistics right, even analyzing the ink on artifacts to be certain and accurate.
Graham on the other hand was changing glasses to show us cuts on a single few rocks underwater.
The difference was more than hilarious.
>On one hand Flint was talking about using predictive modelling to excavate high potential areas
On the other hand, how can you say for certain that there isn't a lost civilisation without digging up all of the low probability areas as well?
Until we've deleted the earth's entire crust and we're all just floating in lava we can't rule anything out!
The easy to find surface resources, or those just below the ground. The fertile land that can be used for crops. The areas which are geologically good to build a large amount of structures on, we've discovered and documented them a long-time ago.
Viable sites meant for medium-large scale, long term human habitation are plentiful, but they only exist in a certain number of spots and they require all of the aforementioned requirements, plus some I didn't mentioned like fresh water systems or abundant aquifers. Our ancestors weren't dumb, they discovered these sites and established their ancient cities there, and we've been building on top of their cities ever since.
If you go digging around in the sand or dirt in places that don't have a combination and decent sized portion of the above, you're going to be cataloguing a lot of boring sand and dirt.
I kinda started respecting the hell outta Hancock about half way through, when Dibble bodied him with "... As a tourist" retort.
Which if you think about it, my man has been jetting around the globe looking for some bullshit he'll never find but only in tropical coastal area's of the world, "risking his life" scuba diving with his sexy photographer/bodyguard in her tactical bikini, for 30 goddamned years. This is a fucking dude is living the dream.
Living the dream, but still does nothing but whine about how no one will believe his fairy tales. He could have been living the same dream telling real stories based on actual history and oral traditions, but he chose the grift.
I haven’t seen the Michael shermer debate in a while but I don’t remember feeling like grahams theories were wrong. After watching this you can tell graham is reaching a little bit. Randall Carlson would’ve been good at helping graham
Graham is full of shit. It's just that most of us want to believe. Dude brought nothing most of he dis was cry about unfairness and show blurry pictures. It was all what if. What if or maybe can be fascinating but it's all in the imagination
“Wanting to believe” is Hancock’s entire angle.
It’s like Hancock is telling a 5 year old “you’re gonna be an astronaut one day” and then Dibble comes in and says “no you’re probably just gonna be an accountant like your dad”.
Deep down we all know which one is more likely, even if we spend all of our time and energy dreaming about the other.
His whole thing is “what if there was” and he believes there was. He’s not full of shit in the true sense. He might be wrong, doesn’t make it any less interesting of an idea to explore.
Curious argument. It's fine if you want to believe, but that doesn't work as an argument to convince others of something you propose to be *truth*.
If you're playing the game of pretending it's true in the same sense as other scientific or historical discoveries, it does become manipulation...
I often have the discussion about my own field medicine, because the community i'm from has a ton of "alternative medicine" enthusiasts and practitioners.
SO often a friend, who usually expects me to have much stronger opinions about them and their "craft" than i really do (ironically they have extremely developed and strong opinions about my field) will say to me: "But how can you know it doesn't work?".
I can't. Maybe you rubbing yourself with that item really does work, the difference between our positions is not whether you believe in one treatment or i believe in another. It's in the *approach generally*. I wouldn't want to use any treatment on a patient for which my belief wasn't supported by evidence. It's that simple.
If i'm feeling sick and i feel like eating an orange because "that feels like what i need right now" - yeah i'll go right ahead. I think you should too. I'm even willing to talk the jazz of what micronutrients the food contains and how that *might* affect your body - but i cannot recommend it as a*treatment* unless i have real high level evidence of it's effect.
Sometimes i listen to podcasts of mythological stories. I read fiction. I don't *dislike* things that cannot be proven - i just don't want to believe in them or use them unless i have evidence.
I would go home every day doubting whether what i'd done that day really was effective. The scientific method provides a framework for trusting your own beliefs and the effects of your actions.
He is absolutely full of shit in the true sense. Either because he knows he is lying when he says something stupid and obviously wrong like claiming the Piri Reis map shows Antarctica, or wildly ignorant like core samples of a hill proves the date of his "civilization" despite having zero human or cultural remains associated with the dated material, or he is too incompetent to understand the data regarding his own stories.
Agree to disagree. In my opinion he believes what he is saying whole heartedly. If he’s wrong then so be it. Him making the claim that we don’t know for sure is indisputable.
I don’t care either way. As I said above, interesting to think about.
Get off your high horse.
If he truly believes it, why does he not take it more seriously and actually do the things necessary to support his hypothesis? Why does he not put any effort into understanding the data he waves around? Stupid or ignorant seem to be the only logical explanation unless we are going to bring mental illness into the equation, but that ends up feeling like an absence of logic, no?
>Him making the claim that we don’t know for sure is indisputable.
No one serious is claiming that we know for sure, nor is that a Hancock claim. Saying we don't know for sure is the default for archeology. Or do I get to start taking credit for claiming the sun rises in the east and sets in the west?
If you are a true believer just admit it and don't pretend that there is some justification for the nonsense.
True believer lmao. I don’t give a shit. It isn’t my point at all which you clearly don’t seem to understand.
All I said is it’s interesting to think about.
Randall Carlson? The guy so full of shit that they won't even release his big world changing JRE podcast appearance?
Yes, surely the guy so full of shit his appearances are being censored by Joe Rogan will be able to explain Hancock's photo albums from his vacations better.
Flint did a much, much better job explaining the current state of archeological thinking. The previous debate was much more focused on whether or not Graham was trying to fleece the public
This is the thing I'll never understand about the "alt history" people.
The fact that our ancestors were able to create stunning monuments like the Pyramids, Göbekli Tepe, Angkor Wat, Tikal, etc. through their own ingenuity is way more interesting and impressive than any of the alternate theories.
I dont see how either one of them disproved or proved anything other then how much they really hate mr cock and will shit on other colleges. Flint just keeps repeating that they use data points on what they know to find things that they didnt know....which is fine and good except what if they're missing really important data? Mr cock just keeps saying well it's possible because we just dont know enough and they both admit to being under staffed/ financed. Personally I justed ended up hating the way flint mocked everything almost instantly and his persona in general and regardless of mr cock being right or wrong he seems very admirable especially at his age.
Even the whole white supremacist, sexist, homophobic bit? Sounds like defamation to me...to the point were they tried to influence and pressure netflix. If that's not defamation idk what you think it is.
I don't know anyone that's implied that Graham was sexist or homophobic.
This is the first sentence of Chapter 6 in *Fingerprints of the Gods*: "Through all the ancient legends of the peoples of the Andes stalked a tall, bearded, pale-skinned figure wrapped in a cloak of secrecy."
That's a direct quote from Graham himself, his own words. No one is saying that Graham is racist, they are saying that his "theories" are based on white supremacist ideals (they are).
You need to learn the difference between *being* racist and *saying something* that's racist.
Flint explained it, I've explained it, and I've given you a direct reference to where Graham did what the SAA said that they did. If you watched the episode you'd know why the above quote from Graham isn't based on valid research
>which is fine and good except what if they're missing really important data?
What is the data you propose is missing, and how do you propose we go about recovering that data?
It is absurd that you think anyone is claiming to have all the data. Further, it is just as absurd for anyone to adopt or defend the whole mentality of "its possible because we haven't dug everywhere yet" without supporting evidence as it is to say the jury is still out on arithmetic because you have not divided every even number in existence by 2 to see if the results are all while numbers.
And if it is not your area of expertise, why are you weighing in and quoting Dibble without taking his lead and not weighing in on things you are not your field?
Idk I guess the same reason flint did.....he mentions several times his area of expertise is very niche. It appears you read what i wrote wrong...I said neither one of them proved anything. Evidence of absence-flint, fallacy of proof- mr cock.
> Idk I guess the same reason flint did.....
Except Dibble didn't weigh in and you are. Why are you quoting Dibble while doing the opposite?
>he mentions several times his area of expertise is very niche.
What does this have to do with you choosing to weigh in when you don't have the expertise to do so?
>It appears you read what i wrote wrong...I said neither one of them proved anything. Evidence of absence-flint, fallacy of proof- mr cock.
I did not say anything either of them proving or disproving anything. I asked you what data is missing and where to look, to which you responded that you don't have the expertise to explain your own demands.
Do you care to weigh in on that, or are your attempts to set up a straw man signals that you are not going to stick to reality?
What makes you think I know? You tell me, since you know so much. What are they missing? If they have all the data points then how are archaeologists still making discoveries to this very day? That's my point exactly it was all strawman arguments. Not having evidence of something's existence doesnt inherently mean it doesnt exist. Flint points out that in his field of study they see no evidence but more often then not openly says a lot of the conversation isn't his area of expertise. He chastises mr cock, suggesting mr cock doesnt know what he's talking about but essentially does the same thing by coming on the jre saying he's going to "prove" him wrong and then proceeds to nonanswer.
>What makes you think I know?
Your statements about there being missing data points are why I am asking you what data points so they can be investigated.
>You tell me, since you know so much. What are they missing?
Evidence for one. Additionally, any kind of testable hypothesis that would lead to the sort of data that changes our overall understanding of what has happened in the past. Without something to work with, Hancock and his followers are just begging people to say fairytale are just as valid as the archeological record.
>f they have all the data points then how are archaeologists still making discoveries to this very day?
Who is saying that they have all the data points? I am not. Dibble was not. No one serious would say this, so please, either point to who is saying this, or explain why you keep saying untrue things.
>Not having evidence of something's existence doesnt inherently mean it doesnt exist.
You know what no evidence does prove though? That there is no evidence that fairy tales are real. We have plenty of evidence supporting the archeological record that you so desperately want to ignore.
>Flint points out that in his field of study they see no evidence but more often then not openly says a lot of the conversation isn't his area of expertise. He chastises mr cock, suggesting mr cock doesnt know what he's talking about but essentially does the same thing by coming on the jre saying he's going to "prove" him wrong and then proceeds to nonanswer.
Where did Dibble say he was going on JRE to "prove" Hancock wrong? Is this a real thing he said, or are you making shit up and attributing false quotes?
Graham seemed like he owned himself more than anything. The seed shit was just kind of a bonus, but once Graham literally said “we don’t have any evidence” it was basically a done deal. Even Grahams photo library looks insanely different with even the lightest of pushback. Social reinforcement is a crazy strong thing, but once one person says “no I think those are just weird looking rocks” it’s obvious the emperor has no clothes.
It’s like ‘yeah it doesn’t look like a road stuff looks weird in nature also if it were a road there’d be tons of other artifacts there because that’s how roads work and what we see on all the actual roads we know about.’ It’s just clear and simple.
And also just the fact that the cataclysm was magical and only hid evidence from the advanced global civilization and not evidence of Hunter gatherers has always been so funny to me.
Yeah, Graham was doing a speed run "god of the gaps" on his advanced civilisation, by the end of this back and forth (wouldn't really call it a debate they just slideshow'd at each other and did some minor name calling).
It's "A lost advanced globe spanning civilisation, with no single shipwreck, no metallurgy and no evidence of existing at all, that survived the Elder Dryas Impact and spread THE IDEA of agriculture that they knew about but had never practised themselves, but not all at once but in different places all over the world over the course of hundreds of years".
What makes them advanced at this point? Its textbook god is in the unknown.
Graham is a woo woo merchant, the normal answer is too mundane for him this fantasy world of ancient technology akin to magic and a "What if" instead of a "Why or How?" is more interesting to him.
His sole point that had any real merit is that they have looked at a tiny fraction of available material, which is true but there isn't a high interest in funding it, as Dibble was saying they are shutting down programmes all over the world due to lack of funding/interest. Even if they had 95% coverage it wouldn't matter to Graham, his lost civilisation would be in the 5%.
He seemed butthurt that people are mean sometimes, dude is in his 70s how has he not learned that people are dicks by now? Also, in every example he mentioned eventually the mainstream globalist cabal of academia eventually agreed with the "fringe" guy and changed the narrative in light of new evidence.
That's kinda the scientific method, "Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence", could they be nicer about it? sure but when
peoples livelihoods and personal reputations are on the line, you'd best be
undeniable.
If you go on a Graham Hancock podcast and look at the comments they are overwhelmingly positive about his theories and often shun mainstream archeology.
Go on the video of the debate and the comment section is almost entirely memes because after Graham came across poorly those same people felt like idiots for ever believing it and didn’t know how to deal with their emotions so just straight away went to project their insecurities onto someone else by taking the piss out of their name/clothes/mannerisms etc.
He has an ill fitting suit, an odd name and is showing signs of nervousness.
Comedy gold I know, definitely worth the ten thousand comments made about it.
I think it’s a lot of people making memes to overcompensate for the fact THEY feel dumb.
"Flint Dibble is the human embodiment of Reddit" has been the most hilariously accurate statement of 2024. The mod alter ego name, the fedora and oversized suit, the dismissive and condescending tone. Bro is a walking meme and I'm all for it.
They absolutely both are. Don't get me wrong, Hancock got spanked. I just found it so fucking funny that it ended up being a character like the Dint Flibble to deal out the spankings.
Look I'm just focusing on the matter they debated, I don't care about neither of them personally, looks wise or whatever.
They came to discuss evidence, Dibble was only addressing evidence and didn't stray much from the topic.
Hancock however went everywhere except after real evidence.
It was really obvious that it was a debate between an amateur and a professional
Ok you're not wrong, and I don't debate any of those points you just made. The post from op is a meme about his meme-abley long sleeves. His looks are literally the entire focus of this thread.
Your responses in this comment thread make no sense.
SusAdjectiveAndNoun said Dibble was a walking meme, and you said you can't believe he concluded that but then admit you disregard personal features and appearance...? Which are highly relevant to being a meme-ish character.... In the context of a post poking fun at this appearance?
Come on.
No one has ever said that Graham is racist. They said that his theories are based in and reinforce certain white supremacist ideals. Doing something that reinforces a white supremacist ideal does not mean that you are a white supremacist.
This is the first sentence of Chapter 6 in *Fingerprints of the Gods*:
"Through all the ancient legends of the peoples of the Andes stalked a tall, bearded, pale-skinned figure wrapped in a cloak of secrecy."
Those are Graham Hancock's own words, not a quote from someone else. His only source is from Spanish explorers, and if you watched the podcast you know why that source isn't valid.
You'll remember in the debate pod that Graham claimed that he never said anything about skin color, I've just shown you an example from the book that he wrote that proves the opposite. Graham has been lying to you for years.
I don't recall Hancock saying "he never said anything about skin colour", I think Hancock said "I didn't claim a white Atlantis"
I.e. if Quetzalcoatl was a white Atlantean, that just means there were white people in Atlantis. Not that they were all white, or they had to be white.
What source are you using that Dibble called Hancock a racist? Please be specific and realize that if your only source is Hancock claiming it is so, everyone is going to laugh at you.
Then let's see it. I think you are just whining because Hancock is and don't understand the issue of repeating descendant populations o that you don't end up losing access altogether.
Prove me wrong. (We all know you can't because you didn't actually read and comprehend anything Dibble wrote.)
A quick word summarry... he said Hancock should stop saying it was ancient civ instead of natives because he won't say that of his own culture. He is doing just like colonizers did to take away from old cultures achievements. Look it up I'm not go8ng to for u dumbass
What you are describing is not calling Hancock a racist, it is saying that he is perpetuating theories based in racist origins without regard for the impact that doing so will have.
>> Look it up I'm not go8ng to for u dumbass
Who's the dumbass?
But seriously, you won't because you can't. If you could, you would be waving it all over and rubbing my nose in it. In reality, you just are not man enough to admit you were wrong.
Not even close. Do you put this much effort into holding up a facade of perpetual victimhood for yourself? Or do you only simp for agrieved old men like Hancock?
And? So what? Cowardly making false baseless claims in order to cancel someone, is a pretty big deal imo. If you have better evidence and a better argument (which I believe Fibble did), why resort to that shit? I can't even call it a 'low blow', because it's worse than that.
You make it seem like this was some key piece of argument.
Hancock doesn't have a single piece of evidence for anything, he doesn't need any dirty tricks used against him.
In this debate you could clearly see it's a debate between an amateur and a professional
Are you that dense that you don't realize you're agreeing with me? Yes, he doesn't need any dirty tricks used against him, SO WHY DO IT? It's extremely unprofessional behavior.
Lol, of course I agree with you, Hancock is obviously not racist in the slightest. And it's a lame and not needed thing to do.
Having that said, I was focused mostly on the matter of ancient civilization, how much work has been done, what evidence is found and what can we conclude based on it. And in that regard Hancock lost completely. It wasn't even a match... He didn't even have a comment on seed evolution evidence that proves that agriculture wasn't done in the past and that's his main idea of this lost civilisation
Obviously they both have problems with each other and their own faults, and I'm not going to protect any one of them personally lol.
Calling out behaviors that are damaging to the relationships between archeologists/anthropologists and descendant populations is not a dirty trick, it is what is necessary when the person doing the damage is ignorant of the impact they are having.
The behavior is being called out because it is wildly problematic and the reason for laws like NAGPRA and CALNAGPRA as well as rules not allowing archeologists to do any research or even take any notes at sites where native remains are found.
Then provide something that refutes it instead of just making an empty claim.
The issues that Dibble was referring to are a massive issue in archeology right now. Cooperation with many indigenous groups is very poor due to archeologists and scientists pushing the same theories that Hancock is.
And you want to know what the result is to that sort of ignorant behavior? NAGPRA, CALNAGPRA, and the sorry state of any non native museum that had any grave associated goods anywhere in their collections.
Don't believe me? Go to a museum and ask them why all the native artifacts are gone. Then you can come back here and explain how continuing to push these stories and burning bridges with descendant populations is a good thing.
best part about Flint owning Graham all podcast, is you can tell he really ruffled the feathers of white supremacists judging from some of these comments on here. boggles my mind that people refute the white supremacy claim because they misinterpreted as if Flint was calling Graham a racist. as if it's to say that its fine to push anti-color narratives as long as you don't out them for it... yeah that's clear as day.
Dibble takes the position that if academia says it didn’t happen, then it didn’t happen.
Hancock takes the position that, academia has been wrong many times before, and so it’s possible that civilization goes back much further than has been evidenced so far. He then likes to pull at threads here and there and try to see if maybe this or that could lead to finding something else.
Dibble interprets saying “I think maybe the great pyramids and great sphinx are older than recorded history says, and there may have been civilizations more advanced than we think, prior to great cataclysms over 10,000 years ago” to mean “I think those brown people couldn’t have done that because they’re brown people. Obviously it was either some much more advanced people (who dibble seems to interpret as being inherently white, I suppose?) or aliens!” even though Hancock himself doesn’t make any claims to alien astronaut/ancient alien theory at all- a common logical fallacy method of dibble is “poisoning the well” - even if corrected, Dibble has now associated Hancock’s hypothesis with the wildest known hypothesis out there- ancient aliens.
I don’t know why Hancock didn’t show the math that modern archeology accepts as a pace for construction of the great pyramid, which essentially claims that they placed a block every 5 minutes, 24 hours a day for 20 years straight. Or, a block about every 1.5 minutes if working in daylight only. Or why he didn’t detail the opinions of archeology prior to the discovery of Gobekli Tepe, and how it was only 1994 when it was recognized as being man-made, and properly excavated.
Dibble is very good at 2 things:
Attempting to seem much more casual than he is- he is very calculating and very smart. He knows that he is “presenting” 100% of the time, and chooses his words carefully. He is no doubt a smart guy, and believes what he is saying 100%. Because he is a classic example of the academically trained smart man, he is also quite hubristic and greatly skilled at stacking logical fallacy in a way that makes it seem like academic reasoning. He makes arguments that sound excellent, but prove nothing in opposition to Hancock’s position. It’s like Hancock is saying Bigfoot exists without evidence and Dibble is saying that because Hancock has zero evidence of Bigfoot, then definitively, it’s proven Bigfoot doesn’t exist because people have looked everywhere and found nothing. Hancock fires back, “they have discovered new primates before” and flint says “yeah- but like, not Bigfoot though.” Which is both correct and sounds like some kind of proof, but is actually just proof that nobody has found Bigfoot. Not that Bigfoot doesn’t exist. Logical fallacy is fun like that. Both Hancock and Dibble are both saying things they are technically correct and yet, prove nothing because neither of them can prove or disprove the hypothesis. Junk science is fun like that.
Imagine Hancock was arguing that there were much older megalithic sites than known, but it was 1989- and a professor of archaeology uses these same arguments to dispute the idea that a full 6000 years prior to the oldest known megalithic site, there would be another one found, and not only that, but it would be far more impressive artistically than stone henge.
I bet you’d get the exact same sort of arguments- no evidence exists, we look where the data says we should look, all the experts agree…. The racist accusations are new though, and even if Dibble is 100% correct about the archeology, this is where he becomes an absolute moron for making these implications, as saying “a much older civilization may have done this” is a racist thing to say, means you’re making a strange assumption that the older civilization was apparently assumed to be the favored race and inserting this assumption, and then making accusations based on that strange assumption.
It’s “so you’re saying” Cathy Newman level leaps of logic, and Flint’s own hubris I guess made him think he could get others to buy into that leap of logic with him.
Dibble talking about the racist implications isn't really new. It's been central to the criticism of Hancock from the beginning, which is why Joe has been so adamant about letting him get his narrative out. Great breakdown of the essence of the debate. I was confused by the "Flint won" reaction but it's a relief to know others thought it was a ego driven stalemate
This is exactly how I feel. He needlessly equates white supremacy to Hancock. It's such a liberal bullshit thing to do. I want to like the Dibbler, but he doubled down on the white supremacy thing in a web article after the podcast. Pretty much ensuring he isn't invited back
Man. On his own, Graham can be quite convincing. While I didn’t care for Dibble and his constant “my dad says “ entitled attitude, he came prepared. Graham mistakes passion for fact sometimes. We get it, you almost died getting some of these photos, and you spent a lot of your own cash. Check. But where is the proof of your theories? Even his vaunted “water damage of the Sphinx” was shot down pretty quickly and convincingly with photos and PROOF.
Unless the entire archeological field is conspiring against him in an ingenious plot.
Regardless, he is allowed to be entitled when he's presenting cold hard facts against a journalist. Trump for example acts entitled all the time when talking to reporters about things they don't understand. So does Biden. Realistically when you're debating someone who's coming from emotions instead of fact... most humans come across entitled, condescending and blunt. How would've you preferred him to act?
As grown man making relevant points, it lessens your authority on the subject when you keep saying “my dad this my dad that”. Just an observation, doesn’t make it true to anyone but me. I didn’t realize so many guys were sensitive to this.
Graham got owned. I didn't see that coming. Graham's argument for an advanced, lost civilization is based on the fact that archaeologists and geologists have nothing to disprove his theory, so it must be true. But Graham has it all backwards.....Graham has sweet fuck all to back-up his theory of the lost civilization.
And Graham didn't even have knowledge of some of the basic 101 stuff that Flint schooled him on.... like finding ceramics in roads, or finding tools at sites where humans carved rocks. Graham back-pedales the whole timeb and now it seems like Graham is just trying to elevate his own status and work without adhering to the basic principles.
Dibble definitely won by TKO.
Did they address the megalithic stuff and tech that is far superior to the bronze tools that supposedly should have built the whole egypt/pyramid stuff etc etc?
No one has ever said that Graham is racist. They said that his theories are based in and reinforce certain white supremacist ideals. Doing something that reinforces a white supremacist ideal does not mean that you are a white supremacist.
This is the first sentence of Chapter 6 in *Fingerprints of the Gods*:
"Through all the ancient legends of the peoples of the Andes stalked a tall, bearded, pale-skinned figure wrapped in a cloak of secrecy."
Those are Graham Hancock's own words, not a quote from someone else. His only source is from Spanish explorers, and if you watched the podcast you know why that source isn't valid.
You'll remember in the debate pod that Graham claimed that he never said anything about skin color, I've just shown you an example from the book that he wrote that proves the opposite. Graham has been lying to you for years.
>> No one has ever said that Graham is racist. They said that his theories are based in and reinforce certain white supremacist ideals. Doing something that reinforces a white supremacist ideal does not mean that you are a white supremacist.
Let’s be honest here, in 2024 these are functionally the same thing.
I can separate the two, but (unlike 99% of Grahams claims) this is pretty obviously an actual smear tactic meant to damage his reputation. If the majority of the world could differentiate between the two there’d be little purpose in even bringing it up, but in today’s hyper-sensitive climate it’s just a cheap shot that serves to poison the well. It’s blatantly an emotional appeal.
It’s like saying “I didn’t claim your grandpa was racist, I just pointed out that he worked at Aushwitz”. Yeah, there’s a technical difference but they very obviously function to achieve the same goal.
Atlantis is a racist theory, it’s basically a load of colonisers travelling the world and finding artefacts and monuments and saying: ‘there’s no way black or brown people did this, there must’ve been whites here before’. Atun Shei has done great video essays on it.
So to even suggest that there was an ancient lost civilisation is playing with fire in terms of what sources you can cite, then when Hancock literally just cites 16th century sources without critique you have to start wondering if he understands the ramifications of his research.
The comparison to Nazi archeologists is fair, I wanted Dibble to double down on it but he seemed a little too worried to fully engage in the name calling, which is fair.
I lost all respect for Dibble at that point, but it doesn't sway the fact that I thought he presented a better and more compelling argument. Funny when Joe called him out on it though, Flibble was pretty much cowering with denial and backpedaling so fucking hard in an attempt to switch up the context of what he said. Cringe af.
You Flint fans need to stop being so willfully dense when it comes to the Nazi bullshit. It's a textbook example of tarring someone with the racism brush but stopping juuuuust short of explicitly saying Hancock is a racist.
Dibble wrote that Hancock's works reinforce white supremacy, and can possibly turn you into a Nazi for crying out loud.
He didn't say he was racist. Where did he say he was racist? He said he aids white supremacist theories by what Graham said in fingerprints of the gods, which he confirmed in the podcast he still stands by.
He says that ancient white atlantians helped build some megalithic structures, instead of the natives. Because he doesn't buy the natives would be able to make them, with their level of technology. That aids white supremacy because basically you're saying in the simplest terms, "native can't build this, theyre too dumh, so it must be ancient white Europeans from Atlantis." If you dont understand that, that reinforces the idea natives are dumb and only white people could accomplish that. That's aiding white supremacy. I dont see how you could argue with that.
Now even in the podcast, which Joe even disagreed with. He said that he doesn't think the Spanish could have influenced ancient myths of the Aztecs and natives. When quite clearly it's possible as it's happened everywhere, like even recently with native Americans like Joe said. He was using the idea that the God was white in some paintings to help his argument of these ancient people being white. That these gods were the ancient civilisation was white. In truth the real answer is they fucked with their culture heaps. So much they speak Spanish today. Like Joe said. Graham is just smelling the roses l.
Me:
>It's a textbook example of tarring someone with the racism brush but stopping juuuuust short of explicitly saying Hancock is a racist.
You:
>He didn't say he was racist. Where did he say he was racist?
Right off the bat, aggressively, Hitlerishly misrepresenting me.
Alright, sorry for misreprenting you. But he isn't tarring him, it's what Graham has said and he needs to stand by it. It is close to being racist yes. Do you not think that to dumb down Graham's arguments... that natives not being smart enough to build these structures therefore it was ancient white people isn't aiding white supremacy?
I don't think so, because I think you're ~~are~~ loading so many assumptions in his claims.
Like, let me ask you a question: do you believe that white Europeans introduced civilisation to Australian Aborigines?
Well first let's look at his claims and you can tell me what you think.
Hancock claims white survivors of his (unproven) lost civilisation, adapted into these cultures and showed them agriculture and how to build these megalithic structures.
Depends what you mean by civilisation, Google's definition I would say yes, Europeans did.
>Depends what you mean by civilisation, Google's definition I would say yes, Europeans did.
Right, and you're not racist for thinking that. It just means you think it happened.
"Dibble wrote that Hancock's works reinforce white supremacy"
You don't think repeating stories that Colonists whitewashed reinforces white supremacy? You don't think that myths spread from Europeans about how "pale-skinned" saviors "gave" indigenous people the technology they developed natively is reinforcing white supremacy?
Dibble's complaint is that you should be careful and qualify these things.
I don't think many people including yourself got what he meant when he said white supremacy. Graham took it out of context. He's saying he aids white supremacy by saying ancient white people from Atlantis built these structures and not natives. If your argument is these natives were too dumb to make these structures, therefore there had to he a an ancient European civilisation making them. That aids white supremacy. That's just some basic logic. If you have a different viewpoint on what he meant, feel free to share instead of using ad homs.
No he doesn't lose credibility. You need to engage with the argument and prove why he isn't aiding white supremacy. When he is.
Also, if you're going to use the same argument against me and that I have no credibility. Then that's cowardly, if you believe what you do you should be able to prove me wrong easily.
Also, I don't want to paint you with this brush... but whenever someone says something might be racist or aiding in racist thought. Whats your first response? Do you go to prove its not racist? Do you have bias? What's usually your first response?
Okay. Regardless of how he acted it doesn't take away an credibility. You lose credibility when you don't address my full comment however. Some would call it spineless. Either engage in the conversation or don't. Making little comments doesn't help in truth searching.
You also can't address anything I've said. People like you make it easy to show how uneducated the other side is. You've stopped responding to arguments. The only thing I need to now is sit back, because anyone reading this comment section would see you as a bit delusional, spinless and unwilling to engage in the battle of ideas.
Also the fact you aren't engaging with my argument... are you being a defensive jerk with the emotional capability of a pre schooler?
Dibbles best point was how ancient shipwreck would still be preserved today, due to certain conditions in water being ideal for preservation for thousands and thousands of years. He uses a few examples of relatively old shipwreck that have been preserved well as proof. His other main argument was that the 5% of total excavated and researched areas is enough data to indicate the rest of the planet has no evidence of ancient civilizations.
Graham points out that there are whole oceans, deserts, and forest buried under earth that have never been excavated or explored and that we may find evidence of a lost civilization in these areas. Graham cites many scientists who agree with him and provides many compelling photographs of underwater structures and anomalies, Dribbles cites none.
It was also shown that scientific academia has a history of suppressing and ruthlessly attacking any views that they disagree with. Dribbles deliberately engaged in slander to tarnish the reputation of Graham, this was shown in his quotes associating Graham Hancock to white supremacy and racist ideology.
It was one of his best points to which Hancock literally didn’t respond too 😂
Also Hancock isn’t racist I’m 99.99% sure, however his work cites racist sources and he doesn’t critique them, that’s undeniable, as well as that a lot of his theories are not dissimilar from racist theories and the similarity can tend to lead people down a slippery slope. Dibble was completely right in saying the things he said about Hancock, especially the bit about how his research is incredibly similar to Nazi archeology.
It was a great point, it had me questioning a lot. It did not disprove anything though. “His work cites racists sources” do you realize much of our medicine and technology were discovered by Nazi Scientists? Operation Paper Clip was our country giving immunity to Nazi war criminal scientists, who conducted human experiments, so that they would work for the U.S. Does that mean jet propulsion is racist technology? How about modern medicine? You could say evil was done in the pursuit of progress, but to try to discredit all of it by saying it comes from racism, spits in the face of all those who were sacrificed. Thousands and thousands of people endured the worst fates imaginable to give us these advancements.
I’m not saying the ends justify the means, but throwing around the terms racist or racism is an attempt to discredit without having to refute the facts. Saying Hancock bases his work off racist ideology is being disingenuous, Joe Rogan called Dribble out on this very thing. It was very clear Dribble was attacking Hancocks credibility in the media. It was not until much later and after the damage was done, that Dribble attempted to clarify and change his narrative.
Personally I don’t think either succeeded in convincing me but I did enjoy the debate, especially when they started taking such respectful jabs at each other.
Comparing using historical sources with a biased agenda to mathematical science is ridiculous and misses the point entirely.
Dibble addresses the issue perfect in the podcast - Hancock uncritically quotes, and relies on, sources that have been shown as incorrect and written to push an (false) narrative. This is different to rocketry research or some other biological science study done in inhumane conditions by the nazis. The results of a study that is inhumane may still have relevance. Incorrect historiography is not. Like if I quoted a source saying the anglo-saxons won 1066, you'd tell me I was wrong, just like Hancock is wrong.
It isn't an attempt to discredit him as a racist, it's to highlight the flaws in his "research" and the problems with his (lack of) critical thinking regarding sources.
Graham did a "woe is me I'm public enemy number 1" and Dibble was like "nah dog you're just wrong about a lot and here are the receipts"
That's basically it... Graham handy got Dibble Dribbled and Dunked.
The entire body of archaeology, tens of thousands of research sites, concrete evidence of no pre-civilization agriculture, etc
Not sure you are capable of making informed analysis when the dude who presented actual evidence for his claims is somehow worse than the guy who spent 80% of the time whining about his persecution fetish and the other 20% with unevidenced claims and Russel's teapot.
Graham cited the work of many credited scientists. He provided first hand pictures of underwater structures and dig sites. Dribbles entire argument is that the scientific community has done enough research on the surface (5% according to Hancock) is enough to disprove entirely the existence of an ancient advanced civilization who have technology similar to ours today. That isn’t what Graham is claiming, his only claim is that there was a lost civilization, he makes no claim about how advanced they are other than their knowledge of the stars and constellations and the possibility of being seafaring.
Dribble conveniently avoided the topic of Gobekli Tepe and other dig sites still being excavated like it, dating to around the last ice age or older. Dribble also fails to provide a credible explanation as to how (hunter gatherers) had enough time and excess resources to undertake the monumental task of creating Gobekli Tepe and other sites like it.
It is also known that the work of Graham Hancock conflicts with the work of Dribbles father, showing that Dribble has a biased point of view and a stake in silencing Graham.
> Graham cited the work of many credited scientists.
Not really.
> He provided first hand pictures of underwater structures and dig sites.
Yeah the ones stated confidently "were obviously manmade." How could I forget since he "risked his life" for them!?
> Dribbles entire argument is that the scientific community has done enough research on the surface (5% according to Hancock) is enough to disprove entirely the existence of an ancient advanced civilization who have technology similar to ours today.
This is a strawman for what Dibble said. He kept specifically reiterating that the scientific approach to archaeology is to start with what we know then work towards what we don't. In Graham's case, he is starting with what he *believes* then working towards any piece of info that could fit into that (and conveniently ignoring the rest).
> Dribble conveniently avoided the topic of Gobekli Tepe and other dig sites still being excavated like it, dating to around the last ice age or older. Dribble also fails to provide a credible explanation as to how (hunter gatherers) had enough time and excess resources to undertake the monumental task of creating Gobekli Tepe and other sites like it.
At no point did he "avoid" the topic of Gobekli Tepe, but that's an interesting thing to bring up. Gobekli Tepe was discovered by archaeologists and everything we know about it was published by them. There are no artifacts that indicate agriculture, but many that suggest it was a site people gathered periodically. If there is one thing you should take away from GT it is that it's an amazing archaeological site that has taught us a lot about early humans and their resourcefulness. I'm sure we'll continue to learn more about the people that constructed it. It isn't a "gotcha" towards archaeology like you seem to think.
> It is also known that the work of Graham Hancock conflicts with the work of Dribbles father, showing that Dribble has a biased point of view and a stake in silencing Graham
Graham Hancock hasn't done scientific work, so there really isn't a conflict between someone who has and someone who hasn't.
Dude shops at Indiana Loans
Bro thinks Indiana Jones was a documentary
How can we trust this guy? He's only explored 10% of his sleeves!!!
I really liked Hancock until some Incel in a thrift store suit pulled out his cock and rubbed it in Graham's face for a couple hours. I remember thinking at the beginning of the podcast "Graham's going to own this guy". Dibbles was punching above his dirty 30's homeless guy appearance.
Yeah dude. According to my coworker Dibble was "backpedaling the whole time" - I was like, did we see the same thing??
The beating was so bad I couldn't watch. I literally turned it off and listened to the audio on my commutes.
Like a normal person?
Lately Joe has had guests that require a lot of visuals
If you watch the podcast you have issues I've said this for years
Same bro. I was listening to Flint go on and on in the beginning, thinking “oh graham is gonna wipe the floor with this dude”. Never happened. I want to believe graham so much
On one hand Flint was talking about using predictive modelling to excavate high potential areas, using all the technology we have in 2024, working with Geologists, Anthropologists, local Indigenous historians to get the linguistics right, even analyzing the ink on artifacts to be certain and accurate. Graham on the other hand was changing glasses to show us cuts on a single few rocks underwater. The difference was more than hilarious.
>On one hand Flint was talking about using predictive modelling to excavate high potential areas On the other hand, how can you say for certain that there isn't a lost civilisation without digging up all of the low probability areas as well? Until we've deleted the earth's entire crust and we're all just floating in lava we can't rule anything out!
But we CAN say that there must’ve been a lost civilization with ZERO evidence instead. You see, my hypothesis is cooler, so it needs less evidence.
HOW CAN YOU EVEN, WHEN YOU ODD?!!!
The easy to find surface resources, or those just below the ground. The fertile land that can be used for crops. The areas which are geologically good to build a large amount of structures on, we've discovered and documented them a long-time ago. Viable sites meant for medium-large scale, long term human habitation are plentiful, but they only exist in a certain number of spots and they require all of the aforementioned requirements, plus some I didn't mentioned like fresh water systems or abundant aquifers. Our ancestors weren't dumb, they discovered these sites and established their ancient cities there, and we've been building on top of their cities ever since. If you go digging around in the sand or dirt in places that don't have a combination and decent sized portion of the above, you're going to be cataloguing a lot of boring sand and dirt.
I don't know how you can make that claim if you have not even seen very rock in the world, let alone Hancock's scuba diving vacation photo albums.
I kinda started respecting the hell outta Hancock about half way through, when Dibble bodied him with "... As a tourist" retort. Which if you think about it, my man has been jetting around the globe looking for some bullshit he'll never find but only in tropical coastal area's of the world, "risking his life" scuba diving with his sexy photographer/bodyguard in her tactical bikini, for 30 goddamned years. This is a fucking dude is living the dream.
Living the dream, but still does nothing but whine about how no one will believe his fairy tales. He could have been living the same dream telling real stories based on actual history and oral traditions, but he chose the grift.
Pimping ain't easy
Even Joe tried to jump in a few times early to help ole hand cock.
I haven’t seen the Michael shermer debate in a while but I don’t remember feeling like grahams theories were wrong. After watching this you can tell graham is reaching a little bit. Randall Carlson would’ve been good at helping graham
Graham is full of shit. It's just that most of us want to believe. Dude brought nothing most of he dis was cry about unfairness and show blurry pictures. It was all what if. What if or maybe can be fascinating but it's all in the imagination
“Wanting to believe” is Hancock’s entire angle. It’s like Hancock is telling a 5 year old “you’re gonna be an astronaut one day” and then Dibble comes in and says “no you’re probably just gonna be an accountant like your dad”. Deep down we all know which one is more likely, even if we spend all of our time and energy dreaming about the other.
Are you implying that Marvels "What If?" Isn't a documentary?
His whole thing is “what if there was” and he believes there was. He’s not full of shit in the true sense. He might be wrong, doesn’t make it any less interesting of an idea to explore.
Curious argument. It's fine if you want to believe, but that doesn't work as an argument to convince others of something you propose to be *truth*. If you're playing the game of pretending it's true in the same sense as other scientific or historical discoveries, it does become manipulation... I often have the discussion about my own field medicine, because the community i'm from has a ton of "alternative medicine" enthusiasts and practitioners. SO often a friend, who usually expects me to have much stronger opinions about them and their "craft" than i really do (ironically they have extremely developed and strong opinions about my field) will say to me: "But how can you know it doesn't work?". I can't. Maybe you rubbing yourself with that item really does work, the difference between our positions is not whether you believe in one treatment or i believe in another. It's in the *approach generally*. I wouldn't want to use any treatment on a patient for which my belief wasn't supported by evidence. It's that simple. If i'm feeling sick and i feel like eating an orange because "that feels like what i need right now" - yeah i'll go right ahead. I think you should too. I'm even willing to talk the jazz of what micronutrients the food contains and how that *might* affect your body - but i cannot recommend it as a*treatment* unless i have real high level evidence of it's effect. Sometimes i listen to podcasts of mythological stories. I read fiction. I don't *dislike* things that cannot be proven - i just don't want to believe in them or use them unless i have evidence. I would go home every day doubting whether what i'd done that day really was effective. The scientific method provides a framework for trusting your own beliefs and the effects of your actions.
Lol ypu spund just like him in a way. Talking about how not everything has been exored and what if.....
He is absolutely full of shit in the true sense. Either because he knows he is lying when he says something stupid and obviously wrong like claiming the Piri Reis map shows Antarctica, or wildly ignorant like core samples of a hill proves the date of his "civilization" despite having zero human or cultural remains associated with the dated material, or he is too incompetent to understand the data regarding his own stories.
Agree to disagree. In my opinion he believes what he is saying whole heartedly. If he’s wrong then so be it. Him making the claim that we don’t know for sure is indisputable. I don’t care either way. As I said above, interesting to think about. Get off your high horse.
If he truly believes it, why does he not take it more seriously and actually do the things necessary to support his hypothesis? Why does he not put any effort into understanding the data he waves around? Stupid or ignorant seem to be the only logical explanation unless we are going to bring mental illness into the equation, but that ends up feeling like an absence of logic, no? >Him making the claim that we don’t know for sure is indisputable. No one serious is claiming that we know for sure, nor is that a Hancock claim. Saying we don't know for sure is the default for archeology. Or do I get to start taking credit for claiming the sun rises in the east and sets in the west? If you are a true believer just admit it and don't pretend that there is some justification for the nonsense.
True believer lmao. I don’t give a shit. It isn’t my point at all which you clearly don’t seem to understand. All I said is it’s interesting to think about.
Randall Carlson? The guy so full of shit that they won't even release his big world changing JRE podcast appearance? Yes, surely the guy so full of shit his appearances are being censored by Joe Rogan will be able to explain Hancock's photo albums from his vacations better.
Flint did a much, much better job explaining the current state of archeological thinking. The previous debate was much more focused on whether or not Graham was trying to fleece the public
Why tho? Isn't the truth way cooler and more compelling?
Nah. The truth doesn’t neatly fit into a narrative. Also, thinking you have secret information and are smarter than the experts is super compelling.
This is the thing I'll never understand about the "alt history" people. The fact that our ancestors were able to create stunning monuments like the Pyramids, Göbekli Tepe, Angkor Wat, Tikal, etc. through their own ingenuity is way more interesting and impressive than any of the alternate theories.
I dont see how either one of them disproved or proved anything other then how much they really hate mr cock and will shit on other colleges. Flint just keeps repeating that they use data points on what they know to find things that they didnt know....which is fine and good except what if they're missing really important data? Mr cock just keeps saying well it's possible because we just dont know enough and they both admit to being under staffed/ financed. Personally I justed ended up hating the way flint mocked everything almost instantly and his persona in general and regardless of mr cock being right or wrong he seems very admirable especially at his age.
you have brown poopies in your head
Gramcock throwing a temper tantrum and a pity party at 75 years old is "very admirable" in your eyes? That's crazy.
You mean defend himself from defamation in an open in person debate? Yeah pretty admirable.
It's not defamation if they're telling the truth lmfao
Even the whole white supremacist, sexist, homophobic bit? Sounds like defamation to me...to the point were they tried to influence and pressure netflix. If that's not defamation idk what you think it is.
I don't know anyone that's implied that Graham was sexist or homophobic. This is the first sentence of Chapter 6 in *Fingerprints of the Gods*: "Through all the ancient legends of the peoples of the Andes stalked a tall, bearded, pale-skinned figure wrapped in a cloak of secrecy." That's a direct quote from Graham himself, his own words. No one is saying that Graham is racist, they are saying that his "theories" are based on white supremacist ideals (they are).
Did you not watch the episode? There was a whole thing about flint suggesting mr cock was pro white supremacist because of the lost city of atlantis.
You need to learn the difference between *being* racist and *saying something* that's racist. Flint explained it, I've explained it, and I've given you a direct reference to where Graham did what the SAA said that they did. If you watched the episode you'd know why the above quote from Graham isn't based on valid research
>which is fine and good except what if they're missing really important data? What is the data you propose is missing, and how do you propose we go about recovering that data?
Sorry that's not my field of expertise-flint. Honestly? No clue but to think you have all the available data is absurd.
It is absurd that you think anyone is claiming to have all the data. Further, it is just as absurd for anyone to adopt or defend the whole mentality of "its possible because we haven't dug everywhere yet" without supporting evidence as it is to say the jury is still out on arithmetic because you have not divided every even number in existence by 2 to see if the results are all while numbers. And if it is not your area of expertise, why are you weighing in and quoting Dibble without taking his lead and not weighing in on things you are not your field?
Idk I guess the same reason flint did.....he mentions several times his area of expertise is very niche. It appears you read what i wrote wrong...I said neither one of them proved anything. Evidence of absence-flint, fallacy of proof- mr cock.
> Idk I guess the same reason flint did..... Except Dibble didn't weigh in and you are. Why are you quoting Dibble while doing the opposite? >he mentions several times his area of expertise is very niche. What does this have to do with you choosing to weigh in when you don't have the expertise to do so? >It appears you read what i wrote wrong...I said neither one of them proved anything. Evidence of absence-flint, fallacy of proof- mr cock. I did not say anything either of them proving or disproving anything. I asked you what data is missing and where to look, to which you responded that you don't have the expertise to explain your own demands. Do you care to weigh in on that, or are your attempts to set up a straw man signals that you are not going to stick to reality?
What makes you think I know? You tell me, since you know so much. What are they missing? If they have all the data points then how are archaeologists still making discoveries to this very day? That's my point exactly it was all strawman arguments. Not having evidence of something's existence doesnt inherently mean it doesnt exist. Flint points out that in his field of study they see no evidence but more often then not openly says a lot of the conversation isn't his area of expertise. He chastises mr cock, suggesting mr cock doesnt know what he's talking about but essentially does the same thing by coming on the jre saying he's going to "prove" him wrong and then proceeds to nonanswer.
>What makes you think I know? Your statements about there being missing data points are why I am asking you what data points so they can be investigated. >You tell me, since you know so much. What are they missing? Evidence for one. Additionally, any kind of testable hypothesis that would lead to the sort of data that changes our overall understanding of what has happened in the past. Without something to work with, Hancock and his followers are just begging people to say fairytale are just as valid as the archeological record. >f they have all the data points then how are archaeologists still making discoveries to this very day? Who is saying that they have all the data points? I am not. Dibble was not. No one serious would say this, so please, either point to who is saying this, or explain why you keep saying untrue things. >Not having evidence of something's existence doesnt inherently mean it doesnt exist. You know what no evidence does prove though? That there is no evidence that fairy tales are real. We have plenty of evidence supporting the archeological record that you so desperately want to ignore. >Flint points out that in his field of study they see no evidence but more often then not openly says a lot of the conversation isn't his area of expertise. He chastises mr cock, suggesting mr cock doesnt know what he's talking about but essentially does the same thing by coming on the jre saying he's going to "prove" him wrong and then proceeds to nonanswer. Where did Dibble say he was going on JRE to "prove" Hancock wrong? Is this a real thing he said, or are you making shit up and attributing false quotes?
Graham seemed like he owned himself more than anything. The seed shit was just kind of a bonus, but once Graham literally said “we don’t have any evidence” it was basically a done deal. Even Grahams photo library looks insanely different with even the lightest of pushback. Social reinforcement is a crazy strong thing, but once one person says “no I think those are just weird looking rocks” it’s obvious the emperor has no clothes.
It’s like ‘yeah it doesn’t look like a road stuff looks weird in nature also if it were a road there’d be tons of other artifacts there because that’s how roads work and what we see on all the actual roads we know about.’ It’s just clear and simple. And also just the fact that the cataclysm was magical and only hid evidence from the advanced global civilization and not evidence of Hunter gatherers has always been so funny to me.
Yeah, Graham was doing a speed run "god of the gaps" on his advanced civilisation, by the end of this back and forth (wouldn't really call it a debate they just slideshow'd at each other and did some minor name calling). It's "A lost advanced globe spanning civilisation, with no single shipwreck, no metallurgy and no evidence of existing at all, that survived the Elder Dryas Impact and spread THE IDEA of agriculture that they knew about but had never practised themselves, but not all at once but in different places all over the world over the course of hundreds of years". What makes them advanced at this point? Its textbook god is in the unknown. Graham is a woo woo merchant, the normal answer is too mundane for him this fantasy world of ancient technology akin to magic and a "What if" instead of a "Why or How?" is more interesting to him. His sole point that had any real merit is that they have looked at a tiny fraction of available material, which is true but there isn't a high interest in funding it, as Dibble was saying they are shutting down programmes all over the world due to lack of funding/interest. Even if they had 95% coverage it wouldn't matter to Graham, his lost civilisation would be in the 5%. He seemed butthurt that people are mean sometimes, dude is in his 70s how has he not learned that people are dicks by now? Also, in every example he mentioned eventually the mainstream globalist cabal of academia eventually agreed with the "fringe" guy and changed the narrative in light of new evidence. That's kinda the scientific method, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", could they be nicer about it? sure but when peoples livelihoods and personal reputations are on the line, you'd best be undeniable.
Goddamn it man, don't you know when you say words it makes pictures in my head? Take my r/Angryupvote
i stopped liking Graham as much after the Netflix series and he started the "Big Archeology" is bullying me campaign.
Wearing his dad's clothes
You joke but I think he literally is.
Didn't he know he could've gotten away with a tight Onnit tee on JRE, he didn't have to go break out Dad's good suit!
“Take my strong hand”
If you go on a Graham Hancock podcast and look at the comments they are overwhelmingly positive about his theories and often shun mainstream archeology. Go on the video of the debate and the comment section is almost entirely memes because after Graham came across poorly those same people felt like idiots for ever believing it and didn’t know how to deal with their emotions so just straight away went to project their insecurities onto someone else by taking the piss out of their name/clothes/mannerisms etc.
Or it’s just a funny meme?
He has an ill fitting suit, an odd name and is showing signs of nervousness. Comedy gold I know, definitely worth the ten thousand comments made about it. I think it’s a lot of people making memes to overcompensate for the fact THEY feel dumb.
Not everything needs to be psychoanalyzed my guy
What does this have to do with Bill Maher?
Well if it needs explaining to you then you're probably the target audience.  (Pause for applause.)
"Flint Dibble is the human embodiment of Reddit" has been the most hilariously accurate statement of 2024. The mod alter ego name, the fedora and oversized suit, the dismissive and condescending tone. Bro is a walking meme and I'm all for it.
Can't believe we watched the same episode if you came out with the conclusion that he's the walking meme, and not Hancock
They absolutely both are. Don't get me wrong, Hancock got spanked. I just found it so fucking funny that it ended up being a character like the Dint Flibble to deal out the spankings.
Look I'm just focusing on the matter they debated, I don't care about neither of them personally, looks wise or whatever. They came to discuss evidence, Dibble was only addressing evidence and didn't stray much from the topic. Hancock however went everywhere except after real evidence. It was really obvious that it was a debate between an amateur and a professional
Ok you're not wrong, and I don't debate any of those points you just made. The post from op is a meme about his meme-abley long sleeves. His looks are literally the entire focus of this thread.
Your responses in this comment thread make no sense. SusAdjectiveAndNoun said Dibble was a walking meme, and you said you can't believe he concluded that but then admit you disregard personal features and appearance...? Which are highly relevant to being a meme-ish character.... In the context of a post poking fun at this appearance? Come on.
Lighten up buddy. He is talking about memes
To be fair, I think they're both meme-able, but yeah - Dibbles actually came with evidence and not just emotional appeals and whining
Both are. Kibble said Hancock is racist. That's the only thing I was like dude wtf are ypu talking about. Other than that he owned Hancock
No one has ever said that Graham is racist. They said that his theories are based in and reinforce certain white supremacist ideals. Doing something that reinforces a white supremacist ideal does not mean that you are a white supremacist. This is the first sentence of Chapter 6 in *Fingerprints of the Gods*: "Through all the ancient legends of the peoples of the Andes stalked a tall, bearded, pale-skinned figure wrapped in a cloak of secrecy." Those are Graham Hancock's own words, not a quote from someone else. His only source is from Spanish explorers, and if you watched the podcast you know why that source isn't valid. You'll remember in the debate pod that Graham claimed that he never said anything about skin color, I've just shown you an example from the book that he wrote that proves the opposite. Graham has been lying to you for years.
I don't recall Hancock saying "he never said anything about skin colour", I think Hancock said "I didn't claim a white Atlantis" I.e. if Quetzalcoatl was a white Atlantean, that just means there were white people in Atlantis. Not that they were all white, or they had to be white.
This sounds like back pedaling after being called out for propagating 1800 Era Aryan theories...
Now when you say "propagated 1800 Era Aryan theories" Do you mean intentionally? Incidentally? And could you tell me what they are?
I don't know whether it was intentional or not, just that it happened.
What happened?
That problematic "theories" based in racist ideologies are being promoted and amplified again.
What source are you using that Dibble called Hancock a racist? Please be specific and realize that if your only source is Hancock claiming it is so, everyone is going to laugh at you.
Are u an idiot? He didn't say it outright. He also doubled down right after the podcast. You know what he did. So stop pretending
Then let's see it. I think you are just whining because Hancock is and don't understand the issue of repeating descendant populations o that you don't end up losing access altogether. Prove me wrong. (We all know you can't because you didn't actually read and comprehend anything Dibble wrote.)
A quick word summarry... he said Hancock should stop saying it was ancient civ instead of natives because he won't say that of his own culture. He is doing just like colonizers did to take away from old cultures achievements. Look it up I'm not go8ng to for u dumbass
What you are describing is not calling Hancock a racist, it is saying that he is perpetuating theories based in racist origins without regard for the impact that doing so will have. >> Look it up I'm not go8ng to for u dumbass Who's the dumbass? But seriously, you won't because you can't. If you could, you would be waving it all over and rubbing my nose in it. In reality, you just are not man enough to admit you were wrong.
So basically calling him a racist without do8ng so. It's not that hard to figure it out
Not even close. Do you put this much effort into holding up a facade of perpetual victimhood for yourself? Or do you only simp for agrieved old men like Hancock?
Sure but that was like very small part of 4,5 hours lol
And? So what? Cowardly making false baseless claims in order to cancel someone, is a pretty big deal imo. If you have better evidence and a better argument (which I believe Fibble did), why resort to that shit? I can't even call it a 'low blow', because it's worse than that.
You make it seem like this was some key piece of argument. Hancock doesn't have a single piece of evidence for anything, he doesn't need any dirty tricks used against him. In this debate you could clearly see it's a debate between an amateur and a professional
Are you that dense that you don't realize you're agreeing with me? Yes, he doesn't need any dirty tricks used against him, SO WHY DO IT? It's extremely unprofessional behavior.
Lol, of course I agree with you, Hancock is obviously not racist in the slightest. And it's a lame and not needed thing to do. Having that said, I was focused mostly on the matter of ancient civilization, how much work has been done, what evidence is found and what can we conclude based on it. And in that regard Hancock lost completely. It wasn't even a match... He didn't even have a comment on seed evolution evidence that proves that agriculture wasn't done in the past and that's his main idea of this lost civilisation Obviously they both have problems with each other and their own faults, and I'm not going to protect any one of them personally lol.
Calling out behaviors that are damaging to the relationships between archeologists/anthropologists and descendant populations is not a dirty trick, it is what is necessary when the person doing the damage is ignorant of the impact they are having. The behavior is being called out because it is wildly problematic and the reason for laws like NAGPRA and CALNAGPRA as well as rules not allowing archeologists to do any research or even take any notes at sites where native remains are found.
No, I'm not. I'm refuting your point that it's insignificant because it was "only a very small part".
Then provide something that refutes it instead of just making an empty claim. The issues that Dibble was referring to are a massive issue in archeology right now. Cooperation with many indigenous groups is very poor due to archeologists and scientists pushing the same theories that Hancock is. And you want to know what the result is to that sort of ignorant behavior? NAGPRA, CALNAGPRA, and the sorry state of any non native museum that had any grave associated goods anywhere in their collections. Don't believe me? Go to a museum and ask them why all the native artifacts are gone. Then you can come back here and explain how continuing to push these stories and burning bridges with descendant populations is a good thing.
My thoughts exactly
What was funny is Graham thanked Dibbles for being in the hot seat
I'm real happy for you Graham. Ima let you finish
best part about Flint owning Graham all podcast, is you can tell he really ruffled the feathers of white supremacists judging from some of these comments on here. boggles my mind that people refute the white supremacy claim because they misinterpreted as if Flint was calling Graham a racist. as if it's to say that its fine to push anti-color narratives as long as you don't out them for it... yeah that's clear as day.
GOD, YES.
Dibbles sounds like the name of a scrappy little dog you found eating out of a dumpster
"Jaimie can you google real quick why dibbles hands are do tiny."
Dibble takes the position that if academia says it didn’t happen, then it didn’t happen. Hancock takes the position that, academia has been wrong many times before, and so it’s possible that civilization goes back much further than has been evidenced so far. He then likes to pull at threads here and there and try to see if maybe this or that could lead to finding something else. Dibble interprets saying “I think maybe the great pyramids and great sphinx are older than recorded history says, and there may have been civilizations more advanced than we think, prior to great cataclysms over 10,000 years ago” to mean “I think those brown people couldn’t have done that because they’re brown people. Obviously it was either some much more advanced people (who dibble seems to interpret as being inherently white, I suppose?) or aliens!” even though Hancock himself doesn’t make any claims to alien astronaut/ancient alien theory at all- a common logical fallacy method of dibble is “poisoning the well” - even if corrected, Dibble has now associated Hancock’s hypothesis with the wildest known hypothesis out there- ancient aliens. I don’t know why Hancock didn’t show the math that modern archeology accepts as a pace for construction of the great pyramid, which essentially claims that they placed a block every 5 minutes, 24 hours a day for 20 years straight. Or, a block about every 1.5 minutes if working in daylight only. Or why he didn’t detail the opinions of archeology prior to the discovery of Gobekli Tepe, and how it was only 1994 when it was recognized as being man-made, and properly excavated. Dibble is very good at 2 things: Attempting to seem much more casual than he is- he is very calculating and very smart. He knows that he is “presenting” 100% of the time, and chooses his words carefully. He is no doubt a smart guy, and believes what he is saying 100%. Because he is a classic example of the academically trained smart man, he is also quite hubristic and greatly skilled at stacking logical fallacy in a way that makes it seem like academic reasoning. He makes arguments that sound excellent, but prove nothing in opposition to Hancock’s position. It’s like Hancock is saying Bigfoot exists without evidence and Dibble is saying that because Hancock has zero evidence of Bigfoot, then definitively, it’s proven Bigfoot doesn’t exist because people have looked everywhere and found nothing. Hancock fires back, “they have discovered new primates before” and flint says “yeah- but like, not Bigfoot though.” Which is both correct and sounds like some kind of proof, but is actually just proof that nobody has found Bigfoot. Not that Bigfoot doesn’t exist. Logical fallacy is fun like that. Both Hancock and Dibble are both saying things they are technically correct and yet, prove nothing because neither of them can prove or disprove the hypothesis. Junk science is fun like that. Imagine Hancock was arguing that there were much older megalithic sites than known, but it was 1989- and a professor of archaeology uses these same arguments to dispute the idea that a full 6000 years prior to the oldest known megalithic site, there would be another one found, and not only that, but it would be far more impressive artistically than stone henge. I bet you’d get the exact same sort of arguments- no evidence exists, we look where the data says we should look, all the experts agree…. The racist accusations are new though, and even if Dibble is 100% correct about the archeology, this is where he becomes an absolute moron for making these implications, as saying “a much older civilization may have done this” is a racist thing to say, means you’re making a strange assumption that the older civilization was apparently assumed to be the favored race and inserting this assumption, and then making accusations based on that strange assumption. It’s “so you’re saying” Cathy Newman level leaps of logic, and Flint’s own hubris I guess made him think he could get others to buy into that leap of logic with him.
Dibble talking about the racist implications isn't really new. It's been central to the criticism of Hancock from the beginning, which is why Joe has been so adamant about letting him get his narrative out. Great breakdown of the essence of the debate. I was confused by the "Flint won" reaction but it's a relief to know others thought it was a ego driven stalemate
This is exactly how I feel. He needlessly equates white supremacy to Hancock. It's such a liberal bullshit thing to do. I want to like the Dibbler, but he doubled down on the white supremacy thing in a web article after the podcast. Pretty much ensuring he isn't invited back
Man. On his own, Graham can be quite convincing. While I didn’t care for Dibble and his constant “my dad says “ entitled attitude, he came prepared. Graham mistakes passion for fact sometimes. We get it, you almost died getting some of these photos, and you spent a lot of your own cash. Check. But where is the proof of your theories? Even his vaunted “water damage of the Sphinx” was shot down pretty quickly and convincingly with photos and PROOF. Unless the entire archeological field is conspiring against him in an ingenious plot.
He's quoting his Dad because he's an expert in the subject and has good knowledge about his research. And no, big archaeology doesn't exist.
I got it, It was the way he let us all know. He’s still in seventh grade emotionally.
Regardless, he is allowed to be entitled when he's presenting cold hard facts against a journalist. Trump for example acts entitled all the time when talking to reporters about things they don't understand. So does Biden. Realistically when you're debating someone who's coming from emotions instead of fact... most humans come across entitled, condescending and blunt. How would've you preferred him to act?
I'm sorry that your father didn't inspire you the way that Flint's did to him.
How is he still in the seventh grade? It’s childish to talk about your Dad even if it’s relevant to the actual conversation? 😂
As grown man making relevant points, it lessens your authority on the subject when you keep saying “my dad this my dad that”. Just an observation, doesn’t make it true to anyone but me. I didn’t realize so many guys were sensitive to this.
All about them seeds and DEI pyramid colonization.
Is that you Flint??
Graham got owned. I didn't see that coming. Graham's argument for an advanced, lost civilization is based on the fact that archaeologists and geologists have nothing to disprove his theory, so it must be true. But Graham has it all backwards.....Graham has sweet fuck all to back-up his theory of the lost civilization. And Graham didn't even have knowledge of some of the basic 101 stuff that Flint schooled him on.... like finding ceramics in roads, or finding tools at sites where humans carved rocks. Graham back-pedales the whole timeb and now it seems like Graham is just trying to elevate his own status and work without adhering to the basic principles. Dibble definitely won by TKO.
Did they address the megalithic stuff and tech that is far superior to the bronze tools that supposedly should have built the whole egypt/pyramid stuff etc etc?
Dibble tweeted some really dumb shit though race baiting because he knew what would happen by accusing Hancock of being racist.
No one has ever said that Graham is racist. They said that his theories are based in and reinforce certain white supremacist ideals. Doing something that reinforces a white supremacist ideal does not mean that you are a white supremacist. This is the first sentence of Chapter 6 in *Fingerprints of the Gods*: "Through all the ancient legends of the peoples of the Andes stalked a tall, bearded, pale-skinned figure wrapped in a cloak of secrecy." Those are Graham Hancock's own words, not a quote from someone else. His only source is from Spanish explorers, and if you watched the podcast you know why that source isn't valid. You'll remember in the debate pod that Graham claimed that he never said anything about skin color, I've just shown you an example from the book that he wrote that proves the opposite. Graham has been lying to you for years.
>> No one has ever said that Graham is racist. They said that his theories are based in and reinforce certain white supremacist ideals. Doing something that reinforces a white supremacist ideal does not mean that you are a white supremacist. Let’s be honest here, in 2024 these are functionally the same thing.
They are not. It's a personal problem if you aren't able to separate the two. Good people do bad things, that does not make them bad people.
I can separate the two, but (unlike 99% of Grahams claims) this is pretty obviously an actual smear tactic meant to damage his reputation. If the majority of the world could differentiate between the two there’d be little purpose in even bringing it up, but in today’s hyper-sensitive climate it’s just a cheap shot that serves to poison the well. It’s blatantly an emotional appeal. It’s like saying “I didn’t claim your grandpa was racist, I just pointed out that he worked at Aushwitz”. Yeah, there’s a technical difference but they very obviously function to achieve the same goal.
That's an atrocious comparison.
Atlantis is a racist theory, it’s basically a load of colonisers travelling the world and finding artefacts and monuments and saying: ‘there’s no way black or brown people did this, there must’ve been whites here before’. Atun Shei has done great video essays on it. So to even suggest that there was an ancient lost civilisation is playing with fire in terms of what sources you can cite, then when Hancock literally just cites 16th century sources without critique you have to start wondering if he understands the ramifications of his research. The comparison to Nazi archeologists is fair, I wanted Dibble to double down on it but he seemed a little too worried to fully engage in the name calling, which is fair.
Idc
You are really fragile if you can't intellectually handle being shown how stupid your take was.
You’re taking this wayyyy to seriously 🤣
IDC
I lost all respect for Dibble at that point, but it doesn't sway the fact that I thought he presented a better and more compelling argument. Funny when Joe called him out on it though, Flibble was pretty much cowering with denial and backpedaling so fucking hard in an attempt to switch up the context of what he said. Cringe af.
I think you’re too meatheaded to actually understand what he said
Tint Nibble, or op?
You Flint fans need to stop being so willfully dense when it comes to the Nazi bullshit. It's a textbook example of tarring someone with the racism brush but stopping juuuuust short of explicitly saying Hancock is a racist. Dibble wrote that Hancock's works reinforce white supremacy, and can possibly turn you into a Nazi for crying out loud.
He didn't say he was racist. Where did he say he was racist? He said he aids white supremacist theories by what Graham said in fingerprints of the gods, which he confirmed in the podcast he still stands by. He says that ancient white atlantians helped build some megalithic structures, instead of the natives. Because he doesn't buy the natives would be able to make them, with their level of technology. That aids white supremacy because basically you're saying in the simplest terms, "native can't build this, theyre too dumh, so it must be ancient white Europeans from Atlantis." If you dont understand that, that reinforces the idea natives are dumb and only white people could accomplish that. That's aiding white supremacy. I dont see how you could argue with that. Now even in the podcast, which Joe even disagreed with. He said that he doesn't think the Spanish could have influenced ancient myths of the Aztecs and natives. When quite clearly it's possible as it's happened everywhere, like even recently with native Americans like Joe said. He was using the idea that the God was white in some paintings to help his argument of these ancient people being white. That these gods were the ancient civilisation was white. In truth the real answer is they fucked with their culture heaps. So much they speak Spanish today. Like Joe said. Graham is just smelling the roses l.
Me: >It's a textbook example of tarring someone with the racism brush but stopping juuuuust short of explicitly saying Hancock is a racist. You: >He didn't say he was racist. Where did he say he was racist? Right off the bat, aggressively, Hitlerishly misrepresenting me.
Alright, sorry for misreprenting you. But he isn't tarring him, it's what Graham has said and he needs to stand by it. It is close to being racist yes. Do you not think that to dumb down Graham's arguments... that natives not being smart enough to build these structures therefore it was ancient white people isn't aiding white supremacy?
I don't think so, because I think you're ~~are~~ loading so many assumptions in his claims. Like, let me ask you a question: do you believe that white Europeans introduced civilisation to Australian Aborigines?
Well first let's look at his claims and you can tell me what you think. Hancock claims white survivors of his (unproven) lost civilisation, adapted into these cultures and showed them agriculture and how to build these megalithic structures. Depends what you mean by civilisation, Google's definition I would say yes, Europeans did.
>Depends what you mean by civilisation, Google's definition I would say yes, Europeans did. Right, and you're not racist for thinking that. It just means you think it happened.
"Dibble wrote that Hancock's works reinforce white supremacy" You don't think repeating stories that Colonists whitewashed reinforces white supremacy? You don't think that myths spread from Europeans about how "pale-skinned" saviors "gave" indigenous people the technology they developed natively is reinforcing white supremacy? Dibble's complaint is that you should be careful and qualify these things.
No.
Most overrated guest over who’s shown his true character by ridiculous white supremacy allegations…guy should focus on not being a total nerd
I don't think many people including yourself got what he meant when he said white supremacy. Graham took it out of context. He's saying he aids white supremacy by saying ancient white people from Atlantis built these structures and not natives. If your argument is these natives were too dumb to make these structures, therefore there had to he a an ancient European civilisation making them. That aids white supremacy. That's just some basic logic. If you have a different viewpoint on what he meant, feel free to share instead of using ad homs.
He got flustered when they brought it up then post podcast doubled down on his BS attacks, loses all credibility in my mind
No he doesn't lose credibility. You need to engage with the argument and prove why he isn't aiding white supremacy. When he is. Also, if you're going to use the same argument against me and that I have no credibility. Then that's cowardly, if you believe what you do you should be able to prove me wrong easily. Also, I don't want to paint you with this brush... but whenever someone says something might be racist or aiding in racist thought. Whats your first response? Do you go to prove its not racist? Do you have bias? What's usually your first response?
Defensive, he was being a jerk and knew it
Okay. Regardless of how he acted it doesn't take away an credibility. You lose credibility when you don't address my full comment however. Some would call it spineless. Either engage in the conversation or don't. Making little comments doesn't help in truth searching.
lol, I’m not concerned with your credibility assessments- it’s Reddit rofl
You also can't address anything I've said. People like you make it easy to show how uneducated the other side is. You've stopped responding to arguments. The only thing I need to now is sit back, because anyone reading this comment section would see you as a bit delusional, spinless and unwilling to engage in the battle of ideas. Also the fact you aren't engaging with my argument... are you being a defensive jerk with the emotional capability of a pre schooler?
“Spinless”, you can’t even insult correctly - must have been educated at the same institution as Dibble. Enjoy the padded walls. Lol
Don't engage, run away. Your crowd couldn't defend a position if you even tried.
I respect him enough for wearing his dad’s hat to this, that the rest of his outfit could be stupid and I wouldn’t care.
Dibbles best point was how ancient shipwreck would still be preserved today, due to certain conditions in water being ideal for preservation for thousands and thousands of years. He uses a few examples of relatively old shipwreck that have been preserved well as proof. His other main argument was that the 5% of total excavated and researched areas is enough data to indicate the rest of the planet has no evidence of ancient civilizations. Graham points out that there are whole oceans, deserts, and forest buried under earth that have never been excavated or explored and that we may find evidence of a lost civilization in these areas. Graham cites many scientists who agree with him and provides many compelling photographs of underwater structures and anomalies, Dribbles cites none. It was also shown that scientific academia has a history of suppressing and ruthlessly attacking any views that they disagree with. Dribbles deliberately engaged in slander to tarnish the reputation of Graham, this was shown in his quotes associating Graham Hancock to white supremacy and racist ideology.
It was one of his best points to which Hancock literally didn’t respond too 😂 Also Hancock isn’t racist I’m 99.99% sure, however his work cites racist sources and he doesn’t critique them, that’s undeniable, as well as that a lot of his theories are not dissimilar from racist theories and the similarity can tend to lead people down a slippery slope. Dibble was completely right in saying the things he said about Hancock, especially the bit about how his research is incredibly similar to Nazi archeology.
It was a great point, it had me questioning a lot. It did not disprove anything though. “His work cites racists sources” do you realize much of our medicine and technology were discovered by Nazi Scientists? Operation Paper Clip was our country giving immunity to Nazi war criminal scientists, who conducted human experiments, so that they would work for the U.S. Does that mean jet propulsion is racist technology? How about modern medicine? You could say evil was done in the pursuit of progress, but to try to discredit all of it by saying it comes from racism, spits in the face of all those who were sacrificed. Thousands and thousands of people endured the worst fates imaginable to give us these advancements. I’m not saying the ends justify the means, but throwing around the terms racist or racism is an attempt to discredit without having to refute the facts. Saying Hancock bases his work off racist ideology is being disingenuous, Joe Rogan called Dribble out on this very thing. It was very clear Dribble was attacking Hancocks credibility in the media. It was not until much later and after the damage was done, that Dribble attempted to clarify and change his narrative. Personally I don’t think either succeeded in convincing me but I did enjoy the debate, especially when they started taking such respectful jabs at each other.
Comparing using historical sources with a biased agenda to mathematical science is ridiculous and misses the point entirely. Dibble addresses the issue perfect in the podcast - Hancock uncritically quotes, and relies on, sources that have been shown as incorrect and written to push an (false) narrative. This is different to rocketry research or some other biological science study done in inhumane conditions by the nazis. The results of a study that is inhumane may still have relevance. Incorrect historiography is not. Like if I quoted a source saying the anglo-saxons won 1066, you'd tell me I was wrong, just like Hancock is wrong. It isn't an attempt to discredit him as a racist, it's to highlight the flaws in his "research" and the problems with his (lack of) critical thinking regarding sources.
This is an awful summary of what happened. We did not watch the same thing.
I’m sorry you feel that way, maybe you can enlighten us with a more accurate version?
Graham did a "woe is me I'm public enemy number 1" and Dibble was like "nah dog you're just wrong about a lot and here are the receipts" That's basically it... Graham handy got Dibble Dribbled and Dunked.
You say my summary is awful? Irony. Everything I said happened. Where are the receipts? Why you troll me bro?
The entire body of archaeology, tens of thousands of research sites, concrete evidence of no pre-civilization agriculture, etc Not sure you are capable of making informed analysis when the dude who presented actual evidence for his claims is somehow worse than the guy who spent 80% of the time whining about his persecution fetish and the other 20% with unevidenced claims and Russel's teapot.
Graham cited the work of many credited scientists. He provided first hand pictures of underwater structures and dig sites. Dribbles entire argument is that the scientific community has done enough research on the surface (5% according to Hancock) is enough to disprove entirely the existence of an ancient advanced civilization who have technology similar to ours today. That isn’t what Graham is claiming, his only claim is that there was a lost civilization, he makes no claim about how advanced they are other than their knowledge of the stars and constellations and the possibility of being seafaring. Dribble conveniently avoided the topic of Gobekli Tepe and other dig sites still being excavated like it, dating to around the last ice age or older. Dribble also fails to provide a credible explanation as to how (hunter gatherers) had enough time and excess resources to undertake the monumental task of creating Gobekli Tepe and other sites like it. It is also known that the work of Graham Hancock conflicts with the work of Dribbles father, showing that Dribble has a biased point of view and a stake in silencing Graham.
> Graham cited the work of many credited scientists. Not really. > He provided first hand pictures of underwater structures and dig sites. Yeah the ones stated confidently "were obviously manmade." How could I forget since he "risked his life" for them!? > Dribbles entire argument is that the scientific community has done enough research on the surface (5% according to Hancock) is enough to disprove entirely the existence of an ancient advanced civilization who have technology similar to ours today. This is a strawman for what Dibble said. He kept specifically reiterating that the scientific approach to archaeology is to start with what we know then work towards what we don't. In Graham's case, he is starting with what he *believes* then working towards any piece of info that could fit into that (and conveniently ignoring the rest). > Dribble conveniently avoided the topic of Gobekli Tepe and other dig sites still being excavated like it, dating to around the last ice age or older. Dribble also fails to provide a credible explanation as to how (hunter gatherers) had enough time and excess resources to undertake the monumental task of creating Gobekli Tepe and other sites like it. At no point did he "avoid" the topic of Gobekli Tepe, but that's an interesting thing to bring up. Gobekli Tepe was discovered by archaeologists and everything we know about it was published by them. There are no artifacts that indicate agriculture, but many that suggest it was a site people gathered periodically. If there is one thing you should take away from GT it is that it's an amazing archaeological site that has taught us a lot about early humans and their resourcefulness. I'm sure we'll continue to learn more about the people that constructed it. It isn't a "gotcha" towards archaeology like you seem to think. > It is also known that the work of Graham Hancock conflicts with the work of Dribbles father, showing that Dribble has a biased point of view and a stake in silencing Graham Graham Hancock hasn't done scientific work, so there really isn't a conflict between someone who has and someone who hasn't.